1951-02-05

VISITORS IN GALLERY


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call your attention and the attention of the house to the presence in the south gallery of a class of boys from Glebe collegiate in this city. I thank you, sir, for your provision for their attendance here today.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, at the last sitting of the house the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) asked me to make a statement with regard to the proposals of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to survey iron ore in the province of British Columbia.
The geological survey of Canada has already made considerable investigation of the British Columbia iron ore deposits. Investigations made prior to 1925 were compiled in a report by G. A. Young and W. L. Uglow, entitled "The Iron Ores of Canada, Volume 1, British Columbia and Yukon" (Economic Geology Series No. 3). This report indicates iron ore minerals at fifty-seven localities in British Columbia. These iron ore deposits are dealt with quite fully in this report, and a rough estimate given of the potential tonnage of ore containing more than fifty per cent iron.
In 1930 further geological field work was conducted in the Buttle lake area, Vancouver island.
In 1950 geological survey party, in charge of Dr. J. W. Hoadley, made extensive studies in the vicinity of Zeballos, Vancouver island.
The British Columbia department of mines published a report in 1942 by A. G. McKee and Company, engineers and contractors, of Cleveland, entitled "Report on Proposed Iron and Steel Works."
The geological survey of Canada has no new plans for 1951 dealing specifically with iron ore deposits in British Columbia. However, the field work of Dr. J. W. Hoadley in
the Zeballos area will be continued, and this will include mapping and studies of potential iron deposits.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, the heavy demands the present international situation is imposing and will impose upon the economy of Canada for defence and other measures have made it necessary for the government to give new consideration to the problem of housing in Canada.
Through private endeavour, but also in large part owing to the assistance afforded by the government under the National Housing Act, house construction in Canada since the war has proceeded at an unprecedented rate. In 1947 the number of houses constructed was 79,359. In 1948 the number rose to 81,243. In 1949 the number of houses built was 91,000. In 1950 there was an unprecedented volume of loans under the National Housing Act, and a record number of housing starts. During the year approximately 87,000 housing units were completed but by the end of 1950 there were about 66,000 houses incomplete, which was approximately 8,000 more than were incomplete at the end of 1949.
The government is aware of the continuing need for housing accommodation in Canada, but starts at the 1950 rate are beyond the capacity of the house-building industry under present and foreseen circumstances. Building supply materials, and particularly products of steel, are in short supply, with the result that many builders and owners are unable to complete houses. One of the main problems is to complete houses now under construction, and what the government wishes most to avoid is the starting of a large number of houses which could not be completed.
Since September 1949, additional loans in the amount of one-sixth of the basic loan were being made, provided that the sale price to the home owner was fair and reasonable; but because of rising costs and the previously announced policy of maintaining January 1, 1950, lending values, this provision has become increasingly ineffective. It will be

National Housing Act
recalled that January, 1950, lending values have been maintained in an effort to curb price increases. Effective immediately, therefore, loans under the National Housing Act to home owners will be limited to 80 per cent of lending values prevailing in January, 1950. The effect of this action is that the additional one-sixth provision is suspended. This does not apply to existing commitments. Loans on rental property remain at 80 per cent. Rental insurance guarantees, now on an 85 per cent basis, will, effective immediately, also be computed on an 80 per cent basis.
Although the cost of construction rose about 10 per cent in 1950, the basis of valuation for National Housing Act purposes has not been correspondingly increased. As a result, down-payment requirements have increased in 1950 by the amount by which cost of construction has risen. Without the additional one-sixth, down-payment requirements are greater by about $1,000 on five-room houses and about $1,500 on six-room houses than they would be were this provision effective.
I would emphasize that the building supply situation in certain fields is expected to become more acute than at present, and would urge that builders and home owners consider carefully difficulties which they are likely to encounter on this score before they embark upon building operations. With respect to the current shortage of materials and the use to be made of available supplies, the government will continue to attach a high order of importance to housing and emphasize it to a degree second only to the direct defence program itself.
It is reasonable to expect that the demands for housing will be greatest in those centres where the defence program bears heaviest. With that in minds the whole problem is being kept under constant review, and every effort within the scope of the National Housing Act will be made to see that, of the new housing in 1951, as much as possible will be built in areas where it is most urgently needed.


Mr. Fleming:: May I direct a question to the minister arising out of his statement? In the first place, has there been any consultation with the provincial governments with regard to this change of policy? Second, will the new policy be applied to applications now pending?


Robert Henry Winters: As to the first question, there has been discussion with some of the provincial governments with respect to this policy. As to the second question, the new
I Mr. Winters.]
policy is not effective with respect to applications already approved; but where the applications have not been approved, the policy is effective.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Even though the applications have been received?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.



MANPOWER


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I beg leave to table copies of order in council P.C. 567, dated 1st February, 1951, relating to the establishment of a national advisory council on manpower. In doing so, I wish to make an explanatory statement.
Plans related to the most effective utilization of Canada's present and potential working force, men and women, have been receiving the most careful consideration of the government.
As hon. members know, since the emergency of 1939 Canada has instituted widespread activities under the Unemployment Insurance Act, made possible through amendment to the British North America Act. The unemployment insurance commission now has throughout the country well-organized offices which have a double function- unemployment insurance on the one hand, and employment services on the other.
At the present time nearly every large community in Canada is served by one of these offices, of which there is a total of nearly two hundred. They keep constant and intimate contact with local working forces and employers in industry.
This is illustrated by the fact that the unemployment insurance commission records, kept up to date from week to week, were maintained for a total of over 2,800,000 Canadian workers who were insured under the unemployment insurance commission plan and who were in the labour force at the end of last October. Further, we have records for over four million workers who were insured at one time or another, including the 2,800,000 figure. The national employment offices during the past calendar year have been responsible for nearly 800,000 placements of workers in jobs. To do this, to provide the commission, our research branch in the department and the dominion bureau of statistics with a constant flow of vital information and statistics, these offices keep in the closest touch with their respective regions and communities.
To assist the national employment service and its regional and local offices in its

work, the Unemployment Insurance Act provided for a national employment committee for head office, and similar committees for regional and local employment offices. These have representatives of labour, of employers and of other non-governmental bodies making up the social and the economic life of the nation. These committees have performed and will continue to perform most valuable services to Canada in this field.
Since becoming Minister of Labour I have made appraisal of the up-to-date information on Canada's working force, on the activities in which they work and on the industrial life of Canada generally that comes to the commission's head office, to the Department of Labour and to the bureau of statistics, through this well-integrated network that covers the whole country.
While the demand for workers was less than the supply in all categories, the objective of this machinery has been the mitigation of the hardships of unemployment on the one hand, and seeking to find work for applicants for jobs on the other.
Now, however, when the demand for workers for the armed forces, and for defence industries as well as normal industries, promises to exceed the supply in some categories, I believe the unemployment insurance commission-national employment service machinery I have outlined could continue its present role without interruption and at the same time provide the medium for arranging the maximum voluntary utilization of our manpower during the kind of emergency in which we now find ourselves.
There are many organizations, public bodies and departments of government vitally interested in all these matters, as well as the Minister of Labour, through whom the department and the unemployment insurance commission are responsible to the government: for example, the Department of National Defence, labour unions, defence industries, management, and so on. In this search for the maximum utilization of manpower now under the voluntary system, I believe the government should have available a joint clearing house for the prompt study of month-to-month manpower resources and needs, for the formulation of advice to the Minister of Labour or to the government with respect to these matters, and for the interpretation of resultant plans to workers, to management and indeed to all citizens.
The success of any plans, whether made under present voluntary methods or under more difficult conditions in the future, will depend upon how well they have been formulated in the light of all the facts, and
Manpower
upon how intelligently the opportunities to participate in them are presented to the people of Canada.
Therefore, with the authority of the government, there will be set up immediately, by the order I have just tabled, a national advisory council on manpower, the membership of which will consist of the clerk of the privy council and the deputy minister of labour, who shall be joint chairmen, and such other persons, including the following, as may be appointed, with the approval of the governor in council, by the Minister of Labour, after consultation with the appropriate national organizations:
Four representatives of labour; four representatives of employers; two representatives of agriculture; two representatives of the women of Canada; two representatives of the veterans of Canada; also representatives of the divisions of the government service responsible to the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Resources and Development, the Secretary of State, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
The council may, in the discharge of its duties, utilize the services of the unemployment insurance commission and its national employment services, as well as the national regional and local employment advisory committees now operating under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940.
I would like to state that a representative of this national advisory committee on unemployment will also be a member of the new council.
The duty of the council will be to consider various aspects of manpower questions; to advise on plans under review, and to suggest plans which should be developed so as to make for the most effective utilization in the national interest of the present and potential man and woman working force of Canada.
In organizing this council the government is determined that the greatest care shall be exercised in seeing to it that our available working personnel-particularly in the skilled trades-shall be distributed amongst the armed forces, defence production and civilian activities in the most effective manner possible.
I am informed by the joint chairmen, Mr. Norman Robertson and Mr. Arthur MacNamara, that it is their intention to call the first meeting of the council just as soon as all its members have been appointed, which I hope will be within a week.
72	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask the minister a
question? Will this committee also be able, if necessary, to advise the government on the material resources of this country, both industrial and financial? It seems to me that in order to appraise the manpower we have also to know something of our machinery, our industries and our financial resources.


Milton Fowler Gregg: This council is intended to advise the minister, or the government, or both, on any question affecting manpower.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The purpose of this bill is to add a new subsection to section 6 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, generally known as the national labour code. The effect of this new subsection is to provide for the voluntary revocable check-off of trade union dues.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



KURT MEYER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Justice? What representations, if any, have been received looking to the release from incarceration of General Kurt Meyer, and what action, if any, is the government taking on such representations?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The subject matter to which my hon. friend refers is properly referable to the Minister of National Defence.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: The question of what disposition should be made of Kurt Meyer is receiving consideration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister deal with the first part of my question? I asked what representations have been made, and from what sources.


Brooke Claxton: Representations have been made by him through legal counsel acting for him in the city of Halifax.
[Mr. Gregg.J


Donald Methuen Fleming: None from the German government?


Brooke Claxton: None whatever.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the apparent readiness of the provinces to agree to constitutional amendments in one form or another regarding old age pensions, will an effort be made, as soon as agreement has been obtained, to, present those amendments to parliament in time so that legislation implementing last year's old age pension recommendations may be enacted at this session?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I would not like to confirm or to
detract from the apparent optimism of the hon. member with respect to the readiness of the provincial governments to agree to constitutional amendments which would enable that to be dealt with.
As stated in the speech from the throne, the matter is before the provincial governments for their consideration, and it is and will be the policy of the government to avoid any possible delay when agreement has been reached to have that agreement implemented.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. H. McMillan for an address to His Exceller cy the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my position as a parliamentary adviser to the Canadian delegation, which I have had the honour and privilege of occupying at the fifth general assembly of the United Nations at New York, makes it somewhat imperative that I commence my humble observations on foreign affairs with a word about the structure of the Canadian delegation itself. The multiple-party character and composition of our Canadian representation is a demonstration, in a sense, of the genuine desire of people of all parties in parliament to find, so far as humanly possible, a common voice for Canada at the peace tables of the world. It would be toying with the facts, of course, as this debate has already

shown, to declare that all parties are agreed upon all aspects of Canadian foreign policy. It can properly be said, however, that the presence of representatives of all parties in parliament brings a serious sense of real responsibility to every political group sharing the stirring experience of these United Nations conclaves. Moreover, it provides all parties with the basic considerations and atmospheric background upon which governmental foreign policy is predicated and made.
Unlike our neighbours to the south, who have a type of bi-partisan delegation structure where the Republicans are full-fledged voting delegates, enunciating government policy along with their Democratic colleagues in the assembly deliberations, Canadian opposition representatives are not delegates in that sense of the term. We are parliamentary advisers only. We neither initiate nor assume responsibility for Canadian foreign policy, which, properly, is for the government of the day. Nevertheless we sit in on all delegation deliberations, and are free to participate as fully as we desire. In this way we are left free and unfettered in our constitutional position as critics of the government in both the domestic and the foreign field. It is by far the most sensible and practical arrangement I have seen in the four United Nations meetings in which I have been privileged to play a part.
It is common knowledge that the future of the United Nations organization has been hanging delicately in the balance and largely because it has been compelled to operate under well-nigh impossible conditions. Its failure to impose a durable collective security structure upon the post-war world recalls to our minds at once that it was originally instituted to function in a one-world structure and not in a world split down the centre by two challenging and violently competing ways of life. It was designed to discipline the fretful, the uneasy and the aggressively ambitious state with the collective weight of all the rest. It takes only a casual student of world affairs to see at once that any attempt by almost one-half of the world to discipline the other half under peaceful auspices raises the gravest kind of problems. When one adds to these factors the failure of the victor nations to agree among themselves upon suitable treaties of peace with the vanquished powers and the presence abroad of a poisonous cominform which aims to sap the vitals of and to plant treason behind the lines in all the free nations, and which plans to overthrow with terror, brute strength and hate the very governments which sit with the Soviets around the council tables of the world, it becomes unmistakably clear how far fear, division and distrust have combined with the
The Address-Mr. Graydon abuse of the veto privilege to paralyse [DOT] this adventure into the realm of lasting peace. Nevertheless it is all we have in the world on a global scale where nations can still present their cases, short of resort to arms, and the world is naturally reluctant to abandon it. Perhaps that accounts in part for the stubborn and obdurate fact that not a single one of the sixty nations in the organization has ever withdrawn from membership, while several are on the waiting list anxiously seeking admission. That, in itself, has, in my humble opinion, more than a little collective significance.
I think I must say, after attending United Nations gatherings in various capacities over the last six years, that there is sometimes a little too much stratospheric thinking and not enough of the down-to-earth approach to the problems of the world. For instance, there is a continuing need for realism in dealing with those past masters of realism from behind the iron curtain. They are tough, desperate power gamblers who call for peace on world forums, and, meanwhile, count heavily on the fertile soil of trouble, rebellion, disagreement and chaos to grow their soviet fruit elsewhere. Contrary to Russian professions, I am convinced that settlement of the outstanding inflammatory world issues on any widespread scale is not desired by the architects of Soviet imperialist policy at all. They believe imperial communism flourishes best with the world at the boiling point, and they are doing their best to keep it there. We should not be deluded into thinking that any substantial amount of Russian help is available to reduce the steadily rising global temperature. Their policy thrives on sore spots, and they intend to keep them open and festering. Let us never forget that the underlying policy of Soviet imperialism is world revolution, and its logical successor, world domination. It is hard to settle with people who do not want to settle and who do not think it pays them to settle. That is one of the major reasons why peace stands in jeopardy today.
Not many Canadians relish the prospect of a breach between the free nations and the Chinese people; but the Red leadership of that great power has been consistently waging a campaign of defiance and abuse which in my opinion has deeply injured the cause of peace. For centuries the name of China has stood high in the respect of the world. Her people, with their honest simplicity and pleasant philosophy of life, made friends everywhere. They became good law-abiding citizens wherever they went. These and other kindred considerations have made our diplomatic problems with the new Chinese govern-
74

The Address-Mr. Graydon ment more trying than usual. No doubt the patience, and perhaps the hesitancy, of some powers to put China on the spot and brand her an aggressor and a breaker of the peace can be traced back to the reservoir of good will which exists for the Chinese themselves, but which their Red leaders have been rapidly dissipating. It is too bad that a people like the Chinese have to be judged by leadership of the type we experienced at the security council at Lake Success a few short weeks ago. I watched, as did other members of the Canadian delegation, the unpleasant and hostile demeanour of General Wu, the spokesman for the communist government of China, as he delivered what was virtually an ultimatum in terms of fire, brimstone and vitriol. It was a provocative, abusive and defiant effort. The texture of his entire argument paralleled closely the Muscovite line. It was clear for all to see that Moscow was making the balls and Wu was firing them.
It is probably safe to say that if, with one sweeping gesture made in good faith, the new government of China would throw off the yoke of Soviet imperialism and go it alone, speaking for China and the Chinese people and no one else, the outstanding differences between east and west could be resolved overnight. If the free powers encounter obstacles in finding common ground with China in the days ahead, the cunning and experienced hand of Soviet imperialism will be unable to escape a generous measure of the responsibility.
We in this party will be unable, when the vote is taken, to go along with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in the language of his subamendment, which reads as follows:
We further regret that while Your Excellency's advisers have generally followed a constructive course in relation to the Korean dispute, they have in relation to the resolution branding China as an aggressor supported a course which is premature and unwise at this particular moment, and which should not have been pursued until the methods of peaceful negotiation had been completely exhausted.
When the North Korean communist forces began a full-scale invasion of South Korean territory last June, the conscience of the free world rebelled over such a high-handed and unprovoked act of hostility and armed aggression. The United Nations, very greatly to its credit, promptly took steps to save the South Koreans from disaster. When it became evident, despite the fraudulent attempts made by communist speakers from several nations, including China, to have an innocent world believe that the Chinese troops in Korea were mere volunteers, that the North Korean aggressors-so declared-were being joined by armies of Red China, there was little left


for the United Nations to do but to declare them aggressors too. To have failed to do so would have set up different standards for determining aggression as between powerful nations and smaller powers.
A display of great courage when little nations are involved, and conversely, a demonstration of hesitancy and pussyfooting when big powers are implicated, would have meant that the United Nations was betraying the very principles for which it was instituted. Even-handed justice is a fundamental basis upon which any successful peacekeeping organization must work.
It is perfectly true that the resolution condemning the Chinese aggression in Korea will not necessarily solve either the military or the political problem which sticks out like a sore thumb in the Orient, but its adoption will at least put on record, with an overwhelming majority, the imprint of the conscience of a shocked and startled world which justly refused to tolerate in silence an armed attack on the United Nations forces themselves. To have scores of thousands of hard-fighting troops carrying the United Nations banner in Korea, with the assembly of that organization undecided whether to brand their attackers as aggressors, was a manifestly impossible position in which to leave casualty-stricken troops for any length of time. The air had to be cleared for them as well as for us. The passage of the resolution was delayed quite long enough as it was. The United Nations appears to have profited, at least to this extent, from the experiences gained from the Manchurian and Abyssinian incidents in the days of the old league.
I was suspicious from the start of the North Korean aggression last spring that the Mao government was in behind the scenes egging the North Koreans on, and I would have been surprised also had there not been some rather active encouragement from Russia as well. In plain street terms, all three of them were hoping to get away with it. They were all caught red-handed. What could they have expected as a reward for their planned and calculated attack, not only upon South Korea, but also upon the United Nations itself? The surprising part of the assembly's decision is not the decisive adoption of the resolution but the fact that the patience of the free world held on so long. The purport of the decision is that no nation may expect to have its aggression rewarded by vacillation, appeasement or indecision. Aggressors everywhere know now what they face. That in itself may prove to be a healthy sign for peace.
At a time when great emphasis seems to be laid upon the provocation of earlier days,

The Address-Mr. Graydon
which the Red Chinese are alleged to have suffered at the hands of the United States and other democratic powers, it is perhaps advisable for us to recall that the new Mao administration chose, immediately upon its ascent to power, to make its bed with imperialistic Red Russia, and seems content still to continue to lie in it. They treated Britain's gesture of diplomatic recognition with studied rudeness. They ignored the patient and peace-loving Indians and commenced to invade Tibet while negotiators of that country were travelling to a conclave to discuss Sino-Tibetan problems. While pleading their case before the United Nations in New York, their forces were bearing down on troops carrying the flag of that organization in the Korean peninsula. Their cool and enigmatic reception to the very moderate proposals of the cease-fire committee, amounting almost to a brush-off at certain stages, did not inspire confidence in the new Red Chinese government, even in circles where sympathy and understanding of China were latently waiting for a chance to be displayed in some tangible and helpful form.
Canadians will hope fervently that the free world will continue to leave no stone unturned to bring the Orient and the Occident into peaceful and harmonious relationships. The door to further negotiation must still be left open for an honourable and just settlement. If I were to underline any part of the speech I am making this afternoon, it would be those two sentences. We do not want a war with Asia; we do not want a war with anyone. We want to help Asia. But naturally we want to be certain that we are not assisting in the building of a giant Soviet empire designed to overthrow us and the rest of the world when we are offering the hand of genuine help to peoples who sorely need it. So we say to the Red Chinese government:	Get rid of your Muscovite
masters, and be your own. We can deal with Chinese as Chinese, but their membership in the imperial Soviet family puts unnecessarily high hurdles in front of free democratic assistance. Take those hurdles down and let us work together in peace, harmony and understanding. We all have much to contribute together, but less to contribute alone.
Despite the temptation to place heavy emphasis at the moment on the Korean campaign and the crisis in our relations with the Orient, the concern of the people of the free western world should not be diverted from the principal danger spot of all, Europe itself. There are powerful and convincing reasons why the Soviet imperialists would welcome a wholesale involvement of the free
nations' military strength in the Far East. They are well aware that such involvement would drain the resources of the free powers and weaken their front against Kremlin pressure elsewhere.
Without ignoring here in Canada the strategic necessity of seeing to it that our own defences are adequate to protect our own people from both internal and external dangers, we should not be parties to weakening public opinion on this continent, although there seems to have been a desire to do so in certain quarters; we should not be a party to weakening public opinion as to the necessity, so well recognized when the North Atlantic treaty was signed, for our own defence, of our assisting in the defence of the free nations of western Europe against Soviet designs, pressure and attack. From the Truman declaration down to the Marshall plan for economic and financial aid, and on down to the North Atlantic alliance, the western world has been demonstrating beyond peradventure that it regards Europe as the ultimate strategic area so far as our plans for the containment of Soviet imperialism are concerned.
The safety and security of the central unit of our own commonwealth is inextricably related to such a policy. So is our own. Soviet imperial possession of western Europe would place the United Kingdom in a position of extreme danger-much greater danger than she faced when Hitler held the channel ports; for science has advanced materially since then in the field of rocket bombing and other forms of long-range destruction. The free powers in my opinion must never take their eyes off the Elbe. Better to stop them there than try to stop them at some point closer home. It takes no deep study of military strategy to determine at once what position Canada and the western world would find themselves in if freedom's boundaries were to become the North and South American shores of the Atlantic and Pacific. To use an Eisenhower term, which he used just a day or two ago, our freedom would inevitably wither and vanish. That means our most critical front of freedom is overseas, and we Canadians must fulfil our pledged North Atlantic obligations to the spirit and the letter of the pact, and we must be satisfied with nothing short of our maximum effort to ensure that we play our full part in this integrated challenge to further Soviet designs.
The free nations have talked a lot. They have done some blueprinting of. plans, but there is still an uneasy feeling that somehow we have not come sufficiently to grips with the danger. They have made a start on
76

The Address-Mr. Graydon defending themselves, but the day for all this must make way for the day of quick and effective action. At no stage in our national life did time count more than it does right now. We must all now get down to the grim, practical and costly business of preserving, at all costs, our way of life, which is threatened at every turn by evil forces eager to see the thumb-prints of a police state on the necks of us all. Not long ago no less an authority than General Dwight Eisenhower himself declared that "underpreparedness is as criminal as war itself".
Canada has a reputation to maintain in the campaign for freedom's preservation. She has her own safety and security to consider, as well as the maintenance of the free world in general. To fail to match our rather conspicuous declarations of intentions, made so frequently from international forums, with appropriate action to carry them out, would place us in a ridiculous position in the eyes of the world, and be grossly unfair to our friends and to ourselves. Parliament has a bounden duty to see that Canadian performances measure up to Canadian promises.
The tasks facing Canadians in the diplomatic field are made immeasurably easier when our two major friends, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, are pursuing parallel courses-and as I look' at the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) I realize that no one recognizes that more fully than he. When their courses diverge, our troubles multiply. The recent diversity of views over the problems of the Far East makes it necessary that Canadians use that calm, collected and common sense judgment for which our Canadian people have come to be noted the world over. It should be easy for us to understand the genuine points of view of both, because we are closer to both than any other country in the world.
It is easy to see that Britain's position in the Far East is much more complicated than ours or than that of the United States of America. Her interests, as a people over there, are more intimate with the Orient than those of us over here. It is quite understandable that she wants, if possible, no involvement by the western powers in any widespread conflict between them and the Far East. Hong Kong has been frequently referred to as the New York of the Orient. Britain has it, and while there are unmistakable signs of a communist economic squeeze-play enveloping it, nevertheless the British still have a substantial economic and financial stake in that uneasy section of the globe. Sanctions which would cut off trade with Red China would take on a much more

serious aspect for Britain than for any other major free power, and it is but natural that she wants to avoid them if other acceptable means can be found to penalize Red China for the crime of aggression. Like other nations in the European area, Britain fears the possible involvement of the United States and other free nations in a war with Red China which could conceivably dwindle, diminish and waste the strength of that great republic to the point where it might seriously affect her power to give dynamic and effective leadership to the North Atlantic treaty organization, whose principal emphasis is laid upon the job of containing communism in Europe-and no small job at that. These and other features of the oriental situation bear sympathetic consideration from the United Kingdom point of view.
Nor can we dismiss lightly the critical position of India and Pakistan, our sister members of the commonwealth. Let us make no mistake about that. Whatever may be said of India's judgment in connection with the present United Nations crisis and her relations with Red China, it can never be said that she lacks good faith or peaceful intentions in the pursuance of her policies. The Indian and Pakistani delegations at Lake Success were among the very best and most highly respected delegations there, although I was unable, as were many others, to follow at times some of the policies they advanced and advocated. Their perilous position in oriental politics must be understood1 and appreciated by all of us. Moreover, we must realize that they belong in the very nature of things to that non-communist world bloc of free nations who want no part of a Soviet imperialistic yoke. They are tied to the apron strings of nobody. We, obviously, cannot go along with them on all the issues that divide east and west, but in their desire to give leadership, in their own way, to a crusade for stability and peace in the Far East, they deserve our understanding and sympathy. It may well be that when the present crisis has been resolved and the cornerstone of true peace has been laid finally, the people of the subcontinent of India, which in a sense is the closest common ground between the Far East and ourselves, may be destined to play a part in world peace which will make us all glad1 of our association with them in that family of nations of which all British peoples are so proud.
Having put forward some features of the present world crisis as they appear to affect two sister members of the commonwealth, I desire to comment for a moment on our neighbour to the south, the United States of America. In the February issue of the

Atlantic Monthly, published in the United States, there appears the following concluding paragraph of a commentary on the difficulties experienced by Canadians in their relationship with the United States:
It is one thing for a small nation to follow the leadership of a great power when that leadership is incisive, intelligent, and informed. It is another when the follower begins to feel that the leadership is vacillating, inept, or uninformed. Ottawa has never been particularly awe-struck by General MacArthur. His pronunciamentos plus his something less than omniscient intelligence service has given Ottawa the creeps. Washington's almost cavalier dismissal as sheer bluff of Red China's warning that it would invade Korea if the UN forces invaded the north would not be remembered if it had not been wrong. But what Ottawa resents most of all is Washington's offhand treatment, which is new and strange after years of close co-operation with the Roosevelt administrations.
I have no doubt that some Canadians hold strong views as to how they think the Americans could improve their conduct in the field of world politics. On the other hand some Americans may not see eye to eye with Canadians in their handling of international relations. It seems to me, however, that any widespread surrender on either side of the border to wholesale criticism of each other at the moment could only result in the fouling of our own nest and in giving comfort to an enemy whose cleverness in laying false emphasis has become a feature of its enslaved propaganda.
The headlines of this week end have heralded the observation of Foreign Minister Chou En-lai of China that the United States wants war. We know she doesn't. We know that the prayers of people everywhere on this continent, as elsewhere, are going up nightly that casualty lists on a world scale shall never be published again. No continent has more to gain by peace and more to lose by war than this. That is why peace is our most precious treasure and one we shall not easily give up.
It is no exaggeration to say that the patience of the American people, as well as other peace-seeking nations, has been nearing exhaustion in recent days. They feel that they, along with other free nations, have been bullied and defied by the Reds on varying occasions since the close of the last war. Vivid in their minds are the compulsory absorption of Poland, Roumania, Bulgaria, Albania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and East Germany into the Soviet orbit. They have not forgotten the Berlin blockade, the indirect attempt to throttle freedom in Italy, and fishing expeditions of the Russians in every troubled political stream in the Orient, together with the ominous stepping-up of the activities of the dreaded cominform all over the world. Just how long a peaceful nation should take, lying down, these defiant
The Address-Mr. Graydon and undisguised steps towards world domination has raised a special question for the United States, ourselves and others. We have answered that question in the only way we could answer it, and that is by meeting fire with fire. Whatever may be the criticism of United States foreign policy, at least it can properly be said that American influence has materially stiffened the backs and the determination of free nations everywhere to stop these stealthy aggressors in their tracks. Before the last war, the free nations ignored aggression until it was too late to stop it short of war. This time that lesson is sinking in, and we see that the way to settle outstanding world issues peacefully is to be able to talk on terms of equality in strength and might with those whose language reeks of force and power.
In the international field, Canada must always make her own decisions. They cannot be made to order for us in some other capital, no matter how friendly that capital may be. Nevertheless in the formulation of our policy we must continue to be guided by the cardinal fact that in a world shrunken as this, where we are all on the doorsteps of every other nation and where our very freedom and liberty are being challenged, we have to work closely integrated with others in the common cause. Canada could not hope to stand alone, but she could fall alone,
In view of the importance attached to an effective pooling of free power strength in the shortest possible time, the screaming need of putting an end, once and for all, to the harmful and dangerous divisions which occur much too frequently between some of the major free nations cannot be too emphatically stressed. Our problems on the military and economic fronts do not appear to offer as many opportunities for division as our problems on the political front. Somehow this area of disagreement must be reduced and more effective policy-making machinery set up by which high-level problems in the political field can be more rapidly and confidently cleared and decided among the government chiefs of the free powers involved.
When I returned from the United Nations general assembly I was flooded with inquiries, particularly from people in my own part of Canada, who anxiously asked: "Does this all mean war, or is there some chance still of peace?". I fancy this question is asked of every member of this house. It is regrettable that so many qualifications must go into the reply. It is possible, I am glad to say, to agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), that "war is not inevitable". But it would be describing the situation with

The Address-Mr. Graydon less than candour if one were to say that peace can come without our doing anything about it. We can only have peace in this disjointed, power-drunk world if this nation and others are prepared to do something about it. A static, negative approach to peace today will only lead to inevitable war.
The evil forces arrayed against us do not and will not understand pleas for peaceful settlement of the outstanding world issues unless those pleas are supported by columns of might and power. The hope I have for peace-and it is by no means a forlorn hope- lies in the possibility that when two worlds finally face each other, both possessing the weapons and the capacity to destroy each other, whatever common sense is still then left in mankind will prevail and that both of them will sit down to a conference table, both of them speaking on equal terms of strength and might, and call quits before they loose upon mankind and themselves the tortures of possible and final annihilation.
The weakness of the free powers is an open invitation to war today, and despite the terrors which new destructive forces of atomic power have struck into the hearts of the masses of the world, it may well be that had this powerful psychological as well as military weapon not been possessed by one of the free powers, there would have been nothing standing between the free nations and the realization of the Soviet dream of empire and domination over us all. It will be our hope, and a prayerful one, that atomic power will always remain in the psychological rather than the military domain. Imperial sovietism has it in its hands to keep it there, and has that responsibility the same as the rest of us.
In my concluding remarks I desire to turn for a moment to the long-range aspect of this determined fight of the free peoples for peace. It concerns our relationship with those hundreds of millions of men, women and children whose life and development have been dwarfed by conditions about which none of us can fail to be deeply concerned. Today they are on the move, and we face the bold, blunt fact that Asia is in the throes of a giant revolution involving well over a third of the world's population. Many of these people have just experienced the travail and pangs of national birth and national independence. They are sensitive, and are feeling their way through a maze of internal and external entanglements. To guide them, Soviet imperialism had held a Red lantern to light their way. They have been told by the cominform that most of their troubles can be traced directly back
tMr. Graydon.]
to a western colonial policy of selfish aggrandizement and economic piracy. With this communist stock-in-trade argument, every effort is made by the Reds to put us in the international doghouse with the people of the Orient.
The Colombo commonwealth plan of economic help for the Far East, and the Truman Point Four program, are both steps in the right direction towards a better understanding, and while some Orientals may still prefer to regard our assistance as a deathbed repentance, we should not give up or despair in a genuine effort to help the free Orient to get on its economic feet. I was convinced as early as the time of the San Francisco conference, and have said it many times in parliament and privately since, that in the long run this country and others similarly privileged cannot hope to remain forever an island of good times, high standards of living and prosperity, in the midst of a raging sea of international backwardness, distress, poverty and suffering. In common parlance, no matter how you look at it, it just doesn't add up.
Moreover, it is crystal clear that the crushing of Soviet imperialism and ultimate victory by the free powers will not necessarily mean that communism itself will have been destroyed. Far from it. Wherever there are swamps and marshes of frustration, misery, social and economic injustice, greed and intolerance, communism will grow, flourish and multiply, in spite of navies, armies, air forces or science's most elaborate gifts to the means of mass destruction. In the final chapter of the struggle between freedom and imperial communism, the scales of victory may well be turned, not by force and power alone, but by a humanitarian approach to our own fellow men of different colour, creed, nationality, philosophy and outlook in the farthest recesses of the globe. It is a basis of permanent peace which, after the current clash has been resolved, must be seriously considered by us all if the free way of life is to survive.


Mr. J. M. Dechene (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, in asking you for the privilege of the floor this afternoon, I do not do so with the conviction that I have a solution to offer for every problem that we face in Canada. I do not do so because of the ability with which I might convey my thoughts to this house, which has just listened to a great address by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). I do so rather because of the conviction that it is my duty once more to bring to you and to this house a message from the part of Canada from which I come, and to

express some of the views and ideas I hold on problems the solution of which is so vital to the people of Canada.
I assure you that the thoughts which I express to you this afternoon are my own. In nearly fifty years of public life I have always made it a point to say what I think. If sometimes the style has suffered, I hope that sincerity has not been lacking.
In these momentous times I am impressed by the fortunate position of our country in that we have such an able leader with such able colleagues to help us meet the situation which faces us. In the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) we have one who in the last few years has proved himself to be the equal of the greatest statesmen in the world; and I say that advisedly. At his side we have men who took part in the last struggle; they are men of experience who have shown what can be accomplished. If unfortunately this country is again faced with the calamitous events of war, I have full confidence in the leadership we shall have in this country, and I know that confidence is shared by the people of Canada generally.
If I speak mostly of Alberta and of Atha-baska in the remarks which I intend to address to you, it is because I do not quite agree-and I hope I do not get into trouble with you, Mr. Speaker-with the interpretation of the parliamentary rules which we have been following in this country. We mention the name of Bourinot, of May, and of our own Beauchesne. They refer us to Westminster and tell us that once a member is elected for the far-flung constituency of Athabaska, for instance, he is supposed to cease to be a member for that constituency and to become a statesman and a legislator; he is supposed, as a statesman, to consider everything that comes before this house as it affects the whole of the people of this country. But these rules, sir, which are in effect at Westminster apply to a country about the size of my own constituency, and in which 45 million or 50 million people live. They can get together in a short time. It takes only a few hours to travel from one end of the country to the other. How can I, with the best of good will, do that? How can you expect the member for Athabaska, a pioneer himself in that western country, representing a population of pioneer farmers, ranchers, trappers, fishermen and lumbermen, to come down here and call himself a statesman in order to offer solutions to the problems of Canada and of the whole world? No, sir. I deem it my duty to represent, first, the people of my riding of every political faith. I know the house will not object to
The Address*-Mr. Dechene my doing so. I want to say one thing more.
I will say this to the Prime Minister, repeating what I said a few moments ago. Should war again threaten our country, should you and I, sir, again have to face that awful threat, I have full confidence in the policies and the politics of the Prime Minister and the government of this country.
May I say another word along the same line? I have listened once more with great care to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and once more I was struck with the strength and the ability displayed by the men who have joined the Liberal party from year to year and from election to election.
The other day, picking up a newspaper, I saw that Lionel Conacher had been declared by a committee, well informed and appointed for that purpose, to be the greatest athlete of the past half century. He is a Liberal and a member of this house for Toronto-Trinity.
I turn to my left sometimes and I see the smiling countenance of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. McDonald), a tough man to meet at any time and in any line of sport, and also a member of the Liberal party. But there are some sentiments of sorrow in the remarks I have to make. In the seat occupied by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) sat an old old friend of mine. In this country we have no aristocracy except that of the mind and of the heart. We are all equal; there are no classes. But he was one of God's aristocracy. I refer to the late member for Brandon, Mr. Matthews. A gentleman to his fingertips, he had a heart of gold. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, how much of this world's goods he left his family-it is not this world's goods, because the state takes it all today-but I know that he has left them, sir, the greatest heritage of all, the memorial of a fine Canadian and a fine reputation.
I was not as well acquainted with the late member for Queens, Mr. Douglas; but we had a lot of contact because of some personal friends who used to live out west about whom we used to sit and talk. I had accepted an invitation to visit him this coming summer. That is now impossible, but I hope we shall meet in a place where we can talk about all our old friends.
A year ago I sat listening to an address, and sometimes addresses are dreary things to listen to. I relieved the tension by reading a magazine, and there leapt to my eyes a poem, of which I sent a copy to Mr. Matthews, and one to the hon. member for Timiskaming. Today I want to read it to you, and I want to dedicate it to all of my old friends in this
80	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dechene house who have passed the allotted span of three score years and ten. For instance, I dedicate it to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), the dean of the house; to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll); to my deskmate, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch); to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Little); to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black); and to the hon. member for St. Henry (Mr. Bonnier). I am sure you will enjoy it, sir, and I ask your permission to place it on record. It reads as follows:
Before we met and you became my friend,
Age was to me a terrible abyss In which all hope, all loveliness, all bliss Were lost forever. Nothing could defend The old from this grim fate. Now, knowing you, Age wears for me a glory and a light;
It is a silvered pinnacle, whose height, Courageously attained, presents a view Which youth nor middle age has looked upon. You have no words to tell me what you see.
But what you are is proof enough for me That sunset may be lovelier than dawn.
Since I met you, age is a promised land Where hope and faith and love walk hand in hand.
The reason I take up your time this afternoon is that on the day that the news of the death of Mr. Matthews came over the radio I had a letter from him. By that time he was gone, but we all recall the generous and kind man that he was. In his letter he said to me: My dear old friend;
I trust this will find you and your good wife enjoying all that is best. I was just doing some filing today and came across something that again appealed to me most strongly. It was your very delightful note sent across the house to me one day containing a little gem of poetry, and it is a gem, entitled, "To an aged friend." Believe me when I say that the poem and the kind thoughtfulness that prompted your sending it over to me is one of my very cherished memories.
I hope, sir, that I can leave this world with the same kind of obituary that I am so pleased to give to my old friend, Matthews.
The other day-I can call him Art Smith now-the hon. member for Calgary West made a memorable address. You heard it, sir.
I have known him for many many years. We used to walk the same paths. I think we parted in 1917. What a wonderful man he is. What a loss to the Conservative party; what a loss to Alberta; what a loss to the whole country that he has found it necessary to resign. Art Smith came from a city which has given many great men to this country, and some others not so good. It was the city of Dr. Brett, later lieutenant governor, the city of A. L. Sifton, the city of Uncle James Reilly, the city of R. C. Edwards of the Calgary Eye Opener, of James Emmett Reilly, of Richard Bedford Bennett, of P. J. Nolan, Pat Burns, and many others. And now 

here is the last of a great generation leaving our midst. As an Albertan, Mr. Speaker, may I express the sincere hope that Art Smith will regain his former health and remain with us for a long, long time.
Mr. Speaker, today we have been throwing bouquets; and before the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) leaves the chamber I should like to make reference to him. On behalf of the people of all parties in Alberta, may I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for having seen fit to give that province representation in his cabinet. It was a generous move, and we so recognize it because we in Alberta have not always been so generous to the Liberal party.
I am the only one left of that little group that stepped out of office in Alberta in 1921. The rest are all gone. The fact that I am the only survivor illustrates the frailty of matters connected with politics. When the Prime Minister now takes into his cabinet a representative from Alberta I know that he is giving proper thought to the people of Alberta, and I have no doubt that in future, because of this recognition, those people will be more generous with him than they have been in the past.
The Prime Minister, in his wisdom, knows well how much the people of my province have contributed to Canada. He knows, too, about our great resources. He knows that in a short time vast quantities of oil will be flowing to the head of the lakes.
A report has been made only recently which indicates that there are vast possibilities in the bituminous tar sands of my constituency. In that area is the greatest reserve of oil and gas to be found anywhere in the world, without exception-and it is right in the middle of that great constituency of Athabaska. I have no doubt that is why the Prime Minister appointed to his cabinet from my province a man with technical training, and one experienced in business.
I am sure that he will prove to be a first-class representative for Alberta, as well as a credit to his province and to the government of which he now forms a part.
May I offer one further word. I would express the view that even in a state of apprehended war we must continue to develop the resources of the country, and particularly the oil resources of Alberta. We must not restrict unduly any activities in the development of our oil reserves, which are so vital in peace, and so much more so in war. No matter what the cost may be, we must go ahead with the development of these great tar sands fields of Alberta. If the provincial government is unable to do

so, then I think it is safe to say that the government of Canada will come to the rescue, so that this great field of power may be developed.
Engineers have shown that these sands can be developed. Only recently an outstanding engineer from New York gave the estimate that at least 250 billion barrels of oil can be taken from the oil-bearing sands of Athabaska.
On one occasion I stated in the house that if either the Kaiser or Hitler had had resources of this kind in Germany, they would not have been permitted to remain undeveloped. Can we believe that they would be left undeveloped in Russia today? All the more reason why we in Canada should carry out the development of these great resources so as to ensure that we and our allies will have this vast supply of motive power, with which any nation can make itself more safe either in time of peace or in war.
It is fitting, sir, that you should now grace the chair of the house. Perhaps it is within your knowledge that I was born in that part of the country you represent. My family were pioneers in the lake St. John area, at a time when the nearest town was seventy-five miles away. But that proved too close when the railway came and they moved to a place in Alberta where the nearest town was one hundred and seventy-five miles away. Before my father died he took advantage of opportunity offered by the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, took over a second homestead, and improved and earned title to it in the Peace river country when he was almost eighty years of age.
In my remarks I make special reference to my constituency of Athabaska, because in the last few years nature has not been too kind to us. There have been crop failures. Last year the condition was calamitous. Our crop was frozen, and whatever we had cut remains under the snows of winter today. It was most fortunate, however, that legislation had been passed in the House of Commons, on recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), which permitted some relief for our farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
Then, only a few days ago they were made happy by the Prime Minister's declaration resulting from his interview with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, when it was recommended that in connection with the final payment the "have regard" clause be reopened, and that further consideration be given to it by the British cabinet. Knowing the Prime Minister of Canada as we do, we cannot help feeling convinced that he will win his point. I repeat that at this time I am not speaking for the Liberal party, but that
The Address-Mr. Dechene I do speak on behalf of my constituency in saying that I believe the British government will play the game-to use the expression commonly used out in the west-and that our farmers will receive generous treatment, in consideration of the prices they have accepted for their wheat during -the first two years of the contract. I am fully confident that we shall be treated fairly. As an old-timer, with some experience, I believe the people of western Canada may feel confident that reasonable payments will be forthcoming from the operations of the last two years, as a result of the reconsideration to be given by the British government.
I am not going to discuss external affairs. Twice in my life I had to take home to my wife -and to my mother telegrams bearing bad news. I hope this will not happen again. Let us not permit a condition to develop again under which horrible instruments of destruction can flourish. We recall having seen pictures of thousands of refugees, including orphans and women. They had nothing to protect them, and were left homeless because of invasions by their neighbour, bringing about suffering beyond human description.
An old friend from Belgium, who lived near me in Alberta, died recently. He had lived just outside Brussels, in Belgium, in 1914 when the German army marched through-a million and a half of them. He said you could hear the tramp, tramp of their feet, stretching over a week or ten days or two weeks, and that the marching went on ceaselessly. They destroyed everything on their way, ruining the work of ages and generations. This man said that he heard it all the time until he died. The tramping of those soldiers were trampings upon his soul; they tramped on everything he cherished. They tramped on the flag he adored and destroyed everything for which his nation and people had stood for centuries. I hope we shall never see such things again.
I realize that my remarks today may not be very interesting, but as an old man I have confidence in the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he says that we shall have peace. God is still in His heaven and He will be there when all the Stalins and Molotovs and Vishinskys have become only memories. He will be there just as He was after the great autocrats and conquerors of history had lain under the dust of centuries. I say to the government that I am convinced that they have behind them the support and backing of the people of this country, that they have the confidence of the people and whatever they believe they may have to do shall be done.

The Address-Mr. Wright


Mr. P. E. Wrighi (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like first of all to compliment the hon. member who has just resumed his seat upon a very excellent speech. I want to say to him that I agree wholeheartedly in the respects he has paid to deceased members of this house and to the hon. member who has just resigned. Although I number among my friends many hon. members on the other side of the house I still do not think they are sprouting the wings the hon. member seems to indicate they are, any more than I see wings sprouting on hon. members on this side of the house.
With respect to the excellent speech just made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), I should like to say to him that I agree one hundred per cent on one point, that the real aggressor in the world today is Russia, on whom we should be keeping our eyes. Perhaps in voting for the resolution which was recently passed by the United Nations many delegates failed to realize just who the real aggressor is.
I do not think there has ever been a time since I have been a member of this house when so many people have come to see me in the two weeks before leaving for Ottawa. These people had questions to ask as to the government's intentions with respect to many problems and I should like to name a few of them. One question which was asked, quite frequently was: What are the government's intentions with regard to our Korean forces presently training at Fort Lewis in the United States? What forces have we in Canada for our own protection and to take care of our commitments throughout other areas of the world?
I come from an agricultural constituency in western Canada and another question which I was asked practically every time I went down the street in the little town in which I live was: What are the government's-intentions with regard to the five-year pool? When are they going to make the payments? These people were told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) last fall that payments would be made before the first of the year. Later they were told that they would be made immediately after the first of the year. Now they are told that they may be made in time to provide funds for putting in the crops. Another question asked is: How much is the payment going to be? Is it going to be 25 cents a bushel, 15 cents a bushel or five cents a bushel? We do not seem able to get any idea from the government and I think it is time we had some information.
Another question which was asked practically every time I went into a store was
	,	' [
this: What is the government going to do about the cost of living? A man would say, "Look at this sweater. It is costing me $17.50. Four years ago I was able to buy it for $10. Five years before that I could purchase it for $8. The storekeeper tells me that the next shipment will cost $2.50 more, or $20." What is the government going to do to prevent the rising cost of living?
Our old age pensioners want to know the government's intentions with respect to old age pensions. I am glad the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made the statement he did in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and indicated that it is the intention of the government, immediately the provinces have cleared the way, to bring in the necessary legislation to make old age pensions universal. But that is not going to solve the problem of a great many old age pensioners because it will not increase the basic pension of $40, $42.50 or $50 which the old age pensioners in some provinces are receiving at the present time. It is only by taking action in respect to the cost of 'iving that we are going to be able to solve some of these problems.
I could go on enumerating the questions that were asked. There is one vital matter that concerns western Canada: the intention of the government in connection with freight rates. Are they going to allow another overall increase or is there to be some adjustment of the iniquitous freight rate structure there is at the present time in Canada?
These are questions which the government should have answered in the speech from the throne. When I was asked these questions the only answer I could give was that probably the government would indicate its intentions in the speech from the throne. But in the speech from the throne we found again just a lot of generalities, with very few definite answers to the questions which are in the minds of our people today.
I believe it is time that these questions were answered. If we are to maintain the morale and initiative necessary for an all-out effort at this time, the people must have answers to these questions.
I should like to point out four reasons why we in this group believe that there should be support in the house for the C.C.F. amendment. Just before the vote was taken in the United Nations the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) spoke as follows:
. . . we think the putting of such a resolution at this stage and in this form, when the possibilities of negotiation with the people's government of China are not, in our opinion, completely exhausted, to be premature and unwise.

Yet, despite that statement, a few minutes later the delegation voted for the United States resolution. It seems to me that there must have been some other reason why that action was taken, and in talking with people I find that there seems to be a general opinion that there probably were three reasons why our government and other governments supported the United States resolution. First, it is thought that there was apprehension in the minds of a great many delegates that if the United States amendment was not supported the United States might withdraw from the United Nations. Second, it was thought that there was a possibility that the United States might be lukewarm in its support of the Atlantic pact unless her wishes were met with regard to this resolution.
Third, I think there was a fear that unless support were given at this time it would encourage isolationism in the United States. I do not think these are sound reasons. I think we should have more confidence in the sound judgment and intelligence of our good neighbours to the south than to think that they would have done any of these things if the resolution had not been supported. As a matter of fact I should like to give the house an opinion which I believe was fairly general in the United States a week or ten days before the vote was taken, at a time when it appeared that the United States was not going to be able to obtain support for its resolution. This opinion has to do with the purposes of the United Nations. It is found in the Christian Science Monitor and reads:
Its inability to coerce a major power was even written into its basic structure in the form of the big power veto which, a fact frequently overlooked in discussions, was insisted upon by the American delegation at Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco just as much as by the Soviet delegation. We ourselves participated in making the United Nations an organization which could not coerce or effectively punish a major power. The demand that it coerce communist China is therefore a demand that it do something which it is not constitutionally built to accomplish. It is a limited instrument. We helped to make it a limited instrument. It is hardly accurate therefore to say that it has failed. It has only failed to do what it never was given the power to do.
I think that is a true statement. It is a statement of fact, and if the United States had had any idea that they would fail to accomplish their purpose in this way I think that other steps would have been taken. Further on in the article it states that the United Nations is not an always available instrument for American purposes.
I think that is a point and one that we should have emphasized by voting against the U.S. resolution. Any time that the United Nations becomes an available instrument of any one of the larger powers then the United
The Address-Mr. Wright Nations is due for extinction. That is the main point of our objections to the Canadian delegation voting for the United States resolution. By so doing, we are playing right into Russia's hands. This is the idea that they have been trying to spread. They have been trying to tell the rest of the world that the United Nations is simply an instrument made available for United States purposes. That fact is one of the main arguments that the Soviet union is using to destroy the United Nations and yet we give them that opportunity.
The second reason why I believe we should not have supported the United States resolution is that we are convinced that the real threat to freedom at this time is not in China but in Russia, and that there is nothing that would please the real aggressor more than to see the western world embroiled in a general conflict in Asia. Look at the position in which the western world finds itself today. Great Britain has twenty-five to thirty per cent of her forces engaged in Malaya or stationed at Hong Kong and Singapore. We find the French with probably fifty per cent of their available forces engaged in Indo-China. The United States and other members of the United Nations have a large proportion of their available forces already engaged in Korea. That is exactly what the real aggressor wants today. He wants to see the forces of the free people of the world engaged in other areas, engaged in the Asiatic area so that they will not be available in Europe where the real threat is.
The third reason why we feel that our amendment should have the support of the house is that it is of little value to declare a nation or an individual an aggressor unless we are prepared to contain or punish them. Indeed it may even encourage them to further acts of violence. There are three types of sanctions: diplomatic, economic and military. Unless we are prepared to go the whole way, unless we are prepared to institute some type of sanction against a nation which we have called an aggressor, it seems to me we are only encouraging aggression in the world.
Can we institute sanctions without becoming further embroiled in Asia? I doubt it. Any form of economic sanction will require some form of military aid to maintain it. Immediately we send ships or other forces to the east to maintain economic sanctions we are in danger of becoming definitely embroiled in a war with China itself.
The fourth reason why I think our amendment should be supported is that there is a strong tide of nationalism sweeping the Asiatic countries at the present time. Action by the United Nations, a majority of whom

The Address-Mr. Wright belong to the western world, against an Asiatic country before every avenue of possible settlement has been explored, can and will have serious repercussions. In my estimation China and Russia are not natural allies. They have several thousand miles of common border. Along that border much of the area is not clearly defined as belonging to either of them. I refer to Outer Mongolia, Manchuria and the islands north of Japan. Given time, it seems to me that an alliance between China and Russia would become very difficult. In moving the resolution at the time that it was moved in the United Nations it seems to me we are doing the one thing that will drive those two countries together and give them what they may consider to be a common enemy.
I am sure that anyone who listened yesterday to the radio report from Lake Success could not but be impressed by the fact that it is now admitted there that any committee set up under the United States resolution to try to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the present dispute has very little chance of success. As a matter of fact there is talk already of setting up an independent committee outside the United Nations to try to negotiate a settlement. It seems to me that is not good. It seems to me that we were premature in our support of the resolution at Lake Success.
I was very pleased to note that reference is made in the speech from the throne to the Colombo conference, and that at that conference discussions and negotiations have taken place with respect to economic aid to the Far East. I am sure it is long overdue. As a matter of fact we should have instituted some form of economic aid to the eastern countries immediately the last war ended. If we had done so we would be in a much stronger position than we are today. When speaking in the house last year, I made two suggestions. I suggested that one of the ways in which we could obtain the good will of the eastern countries was to bring young people from those countries to our universities and to our industries, to give them some training in the methods of the democratic world. I still believe that is a good idea. I still believe that we would obtain more good will in those countries if we were to bring these young people to the North American continent to enter our colleges, our industrial life, our civil service, our co-operatives, to gain a knowledge of all the functions of a democratic society. It would enable them to see the advantages of a democracy. Little is known about these advantages in those eastern areas.
When these young people returned to their own countries they would be messengers of 
good will from the western world. They would be able to assist the people we may send to those countries as a result of the Colombo conference, to institute the reforms which are necessary if the people are to enjoy a better standard of living in that part of the world. I am glad to know there are others who believe in this idea. At the first of this session I believe all the members of the house received an editorial which was published on January 15 in Maclean's magazine. I do not intend to read the whole of the editorial, although it was a good editorial, but I should like to read one paragraph. It states:
For every dollar we must spend to train and maintain our special Korea brigade, we could spend another dollar to train and maintain a special brigade of several thousand doctors. We could send these doctors, at our expense, to fight disease in the parts of the world where many millions live and die without knowing a single day of freedom from disease.
For every shell and bomb we shall create If there is a third world war we could create with greater ultimate profit to ourselves a meal for the mouth of a starving child.
I believe that editorial expresses the sentiments of this group and a great many other people in Canada agree with those sentiments. We should be doing the practical thing by training people to serve in those parts of the world.
That brings me to the second point which I tried to emphasize at the last session, and that is that Canada should be prepared to make an immediate contribution of food to India to aid in alleviating the famine which is now sweeping that country. I have in my hand a copy of the Economic Annalist in which it states:
Total supplies of Canadian wheat for the 1950-51 crop year are 575 million bushels. Exports in 1950-51 may reach 275 million bushels, while about 155 million will be required for domestic use. The 1950 western wheat crop contains abnormally large quantities of low-grade wheat, slightly more than half of the total deliveries being expected to grade No. 5 and lower. Fortunately, the carry-over at July 31, 1950, included a large proportion of high quality wheat and as a result, enough of the mill-able grades should be available to satisfy domestic requirements and to meet this crop year's allocation (approximately 219 million bushels) under the international wheat agreement with a small margin left over for sale outside the agreement. Both the domestic and export markets are expected to absorb significant quantities of low-grade wheat. If these estimates are realized, some 145 million bushels of wheat (mostly low grade) will remain for carryover at July 31, 1951.
In my opinion that is a conservative estimate of what our wheat carry-over will be next August. What excuse can we have for watching people starve when we have upwards of 145 million bushels of surplus wheat in this country? It is true that this 145 million or 150 million bushels which we may

have as a surplus has a large proportion of low-grade wheat in it-probably over half of it will be No. 5 or No. 6. However, No. 5 or No. 6 wheat will still make a flour that will keep the people from starving. It does not make a first-class loaf of bread, but it does make a loaf which the people of India would be glad to have in this emergency. I see no just reason why we should not immediately make this available to India.
There are three ways in which this could be done. First, it could be made available directly by Canada to India. Second, it could be made available through agreements or understandings reached at the Colombo conference. Third, it might be made available through the food and agricultural organization.
I should like to say a word about the food and agricultural organization. At a meeting in Washington a little over a year ago it was suggested that food banks should be set up by this international organization in order to have supplies available for just such an emergency as we find in India. I was sorry that at that conference our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) did not see fit to support the setting up of these world food banks. They have been requested by the Canadian federation of agriculture and by the international federation of agricultural organization, known as the IFAO. They have been asked for by a great many other organizations in the world.
There are three main food grains: wheat, rice and soybeans. It seems to me that if we are to carry out our obligations to the eastern world, if we are to carry out the promises which we sometimes make, then some international food bank such as was proposed by the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations should be set up. We have not that instrument available to us now. Our Canadian government should therefore immediately offer the government of India at least 50 million bushels of our wheat to be shipped just as quickly as possible, under the difficult situation which exists with regard to transportation and drying of these lower grades of grain.
There is an editorial in Saturday Night which I believe illustrates the point very well. It states:
At the instance of Senator Tom Connally, the request . . .
That is the request of India for two million tons of wheat, not as a gift, but at a favourable price.
. . . has been pigeonholed, and no secret has been made of the reason for ignoring it: It is that India's views on China are different from those of the United States. Fortunately, the Indians possess a
The Address-Mr. Wright remarkable calm in these matters. They don't explode with indignation: They say "how childish."
It would be nice if Canada were in a position to feel superior about Senator Connally's attitude . But this country has done nothing yet to justify feeling smug. India's need has been explained to the government at Ottawa. Our exportable surplus of high-grade wheat this year is smaller than usual. Most of it has already been contracted for. But we have large quantities of low-grade wheat, so much that we hardly know what to do with it. India is not making fussy distinctions between grades. People with empty bellies are more concerned about nutritional value than about baking qualities.
Within its limited dollar resources the Indian government is prepared to pay some sort of price for the wheat. The Canadian government should be quick and eager to meet them halfway. But we don't feel much confidence that it will.
Now, here is an opportunity for our government to do something that they have been talking about for a long time. I hope it will seize the opportunity to make this wheat available just as quickly as possible. As I have stated before, the fact that it is low grade does not necessarily mean it is not good for human consumption, and will not save many lives in India. It could be shipped through the Pacific ports. It does not have to go out through the great lakes, over which shipment is, of course, impossible at this time. It would mean that our cars that are available in western Canada could be used to advantage in taking that wheat to the Pacific coast from which it could in all likelihood be shipped. It also would provide work for our Canadian mills. Much of this wheat could be crushed in the mills in western Canada and at the Pacific coast and made available in the form of flour to the Indian people at this time.
I want to say a few words with, respect to the situation in which we in western Canada find ourselves today. I do not think the government fully appreciates just what happened in western Canada last fall, and I am certain that hon. members from the east do not. In July we had the prospect of one of the best crops ever harvested in western Canada. Had nothing happened, in all probability we would have harvested a crop of from 550 million to 600 million bushels of wheat last year. But in the latter part of July we had severe frosts. Immediately after those frosts it was announced by the people who made a survey of the situation that our crop was probably reduced by some 65 million bushels. Later that estimate was raised by another 20 million bushels.
But that was not the worst of the situation. Not only was the yield reduced but the grade of the grain was seriously affected. In the west our average grade is usually No. 2. This year it will be No. 4 and No. 5. On top of that we had about one week of good

The Address-Mr. Wright harvesting weather. Then the weather broke and as a result a large share of the western crop, probably 50 per cent of it, was threshed either tough or damp, and much of it was not threshed at all. In my own area-and I think this applies on an average throughout western Canada-15 per cent of the crop is still lying out under a foot of snow, not cut at all, or if it is cut, it is lying in the stook or in the swath. Whether this grain will be harvested or not will depend entirely upon weather conditions next spring.
As to the grain that we were able to thresh, owing to transportation difficulties we have not been able to move it to market. This year a much smaller amount of grain has been moved to market than in any other year. The harvest was late to begin with. Then we found that many of our freight cars were down in the United States although they were needed here for the moving of our harvest. On top of that, we found that we had great difficulty on the great lakes in securing boat space for the movement of grain from Fort William to eastern terminals. The boats were being used mostly by the United States at that time in moving strategic materials. As a result, we had a congestion at the head of the lakes. Consequently probably 50 per cent of our crop is not in a position where any money can be realized on it. If there ever was a time when the farmer in western Canada needed money, it is right now. He needs the final payment on that five-year pool a great deal more now than he needed the 20-cent interim payment which was made before the 1949 election. I can assure the government of that. I do not remember a year in the last several when there have been as many debts left unpaid at the local store and to the local implement dealers as there are today in western Canada. We just have not been able to deliver enough grain to meet our running expenses.
I think the government were wise when they made a further interim payment on this year's crop with respect to wheat and coarse grains. That was a wise move and one that will be appreciated by the farmers in western Canada. Nevertheless, that is not enough. Because of the fact that we have not been able to make our usual deliveries, it is not enough to enable the average farmer to meet the debts which are owed right at the present time to our local people. I would urge on the government that, as soon as possible, they make a substantial final payment on the five-year pool. It is needed now more than it has ever been needed before.
These are things in which we are vitally interested in western Canada. They are matters to which the government should give


immediate attention. Unless they do, we are going to find the position extremely difficult next spring. As to the movement of grain, according to press reports at the present time we are going to have approximately 200 cars a day available from now until navigation opens next spring. What do 200 cars amount to when there are approximately 2,800 delivery points in western Canada? It simply means that we shall get only 2 cars a week at the average delivery point in western Canada for the shipment of grain between now and next spring. That is not enough to meet even the movement of the damp grain that we* find in our bins and in the fields in western Canada; because a great deal of that damp grain that has been threshed has simply been left in the fields. The farmers have not even put it into a granary because they were afraid that if they did so it would heat.
I know that there are difficulties in this matter. I know that the drying facilities at the head of the lakes are being used twenty-four hours a day and that in many cases damp grain, with 20 per cent to 30 per cent moisture content, must be dried not once but two or three times before it can be permanently binned. It seems to me that those drying facilities should be increased or that we should try to see if we cannot obtain some means of using United States drying facilities that might be available south of the line for the purpose of drying some of our grain that we are selling down there. It might be moved down there even when it is tough or damp, dried by means of the United States drying facilities and distributed in the United States market. Every endeavour should be made to get as much as possible of this damp grain moved before the middle of March. Otherwise it is going to spoil in the granaries and on the farms of western Canada, and we shall find that not only shall we have the tremendous losses we have had to date with respect to this year's crop but we shall have further losses owing to the deterioration and the heating of this grain when spring comes.
These are matters which require immediate attention. They are matters which have been brought to the attention of the government by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, through the farmers' unions and other bodies in western Canada. At their annual meeting in Calgary just recently the Canadian Federation of Agriculture passed a number of resolutions which they have forwarded to the government with the request that they take some action. Among the resolutions was one expressing some dissatisfaction with the working of the federal price support policy. The meeting voted solidly for a resolution asking the federation to try to secure from

Ottawa an adequate statement of policy and implementation of such policy which would assure more active and more general use of the existing price support powers under the Agricultural Prices Support Act which we passed here at the last session. It seems to me that this is action which we should take at this session. We should see that there is some parity price guaranteed to agriculture in western Canada, and throughout the whole of Canada, for the products which we produce on the farm.
I was disappointed in the speech from the throne because there was nothing in it which indicated that the wheat board act might be amended at this session. Along with a great many other people in western Canada, I feel that the wheat board act should be amended at this session to allow the government to take over whatever remains of this year's crop on the 1st of August in 1951 and to make a final settlement with the farmer. If this is not done, and we have a carry-over, such as is suggested in the Economic Annalist, of some 145 million bushels of low-grade wheat it will mean that we shall not be able to dispose of it for probably twelve to eighteen months, and no final settlement can be made on this year's wheat pool until all the crop is disposed of.
If our wheat board act were amended to allow the wheat board to take over what quantities remain on the 1st of August 1951 at a nominal figure, say the average price at which they have been able to sell that wheat during the course of the year, and make a final settlement, I am sure it would be appreciated by western agriculture, and it would mean that the wheat board method of handling the grain would be more popular than it will be if they have to wait for from twelve to eighteen months before a final settlement can be made on the crop.
It is not my intention today to go into other matters mentioned in the speech from the throne. If I had time I should like to discuss the matter of the national mobilization of our resources, and many other matters which are dealt with in the speech from the throne, but opportunity will be provided for that during the session when these matters are under consideration.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I greatly enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), and I was much interested in the remarks of the speaker who has just taken his seat as regards the assistance which we should have been giving to less favoured lands.
One of the things which always impress me, while projects of this kind are up for discussion, is that never a word is said about
The Address-Mr. Blackmore where the money should come from to pay for all these acts of generosity which we all realize we should be performing toward other countries. I wish that somehow or other it would get into the minds of the responsible people of today that there is the general problem of finding money to do these things that everybody knows could be and ought to be done.
It is my purpose today to devote some attention to price controls. In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, price controls should be applied immediately. Everyone at all familiar with the problem of prices realizes that, involved in that problem, are numerous and baffling difficulties. I have no severe criticism to offer the government. I realize they are in an extremely difficult position, harassed by considerations on every hand which make it extremely hard to make the wise decision. Nevertheless I believe that the policy which I have already suggested is sound.
Those who favoured the removal of controls'-and our Conservative friends were among the leaders in that noble task at the close of the war-believed that production would overtake consumption. It was quite logical to expect that. For some reason or other matters did not work out the way they should have.
Those who now resist the re-imposition of control's believe as well that production will overtake consumption in Canada, and force prices down. That may occur. If the war in Korea fails to expand, as there are some dangers it might expand, then conceivably we might be faced with depressed conditions in this country, if production goes forward as rapidly as it could.
But while we are learning what is going to happen something must be done for the ordinary person right now. There must be relief until production can catch up with consumption.
Even after production catches up with consumption we shall very likely have to have for a time floors and other help to prevent ruinous depression falls in prices of all those commodities the producers of which are not able to defend their prices through limiting production or by price understandings or by some other means. This country faces that grim consideration also, so that merely to break the price structure, with overproduction widespread, is not to find a solution to the problem' which confronts us.
The Social Credit proposals for stabilizing of our prices in a war economy may be summarized as follows: Over-all prices and wages control should be introduced. But at the same time there should be adjustment of prices to

The Address-Mr. Blackmore provide a fair profit, and an adjustment of wages to conform with the adjustment in the price level.
Farm prices should be adjusted to provide for a parity with this adjusted price level to which I have already referred.
Every possible encouragement should be given to increase production of all required goods.
There should be adoption of measures such as consumer subsidies to maintain the purchasing power of low income groups so as to enable them to buy the necessities of life.
Rationing of commodities should be introduced wherever the supply of those commodities cannot be increased to satisfy consumer demands.
As a larger and larger percentage of the production of the nation is diverted to war purposes, thereby making for a scarcity of consumer goods and at the same time requiring an increase in government expenditures, adoption of the following policies is recommended: (1), holding income tax exemptions at present levels; (2), institution of compulsory savings; (3), in the event of an unavoidable increase in taxation, it shall be in the form of direct taxation; (4), any change in indirect taxation should be downward, and any sales tax that remains should be converted to a direct sales tax and advertised as such; (5), if the government is unable to raise sufficient revenue by the above means and finds it desirable to adopt a policy of monetary expansion, then the government should effect that monetary expansion by utilizing the Bank of Canada rather than the chartered banks. In order to deal with a problem such as that of the inflation which now confronts us, it is of the greatest importance tQ analyse carefully the cause of that inflation. Otherwise we may be advocating remedies which would aggravate rather than remedy the situation.
There are several causes of inflation, all of which I do not at this time need to mention. For a few moments may I concentrate on one of them? The one important cause to which, I believe, we must give careful *thought is the increases in the cost of production. We find people advocating far greater taxation in order to draw off purchasing power. I do not see that greater taxation would be of very great value. My fear is that such greater taxation would actually increase costs, and probably do more harm than good.
As an example of how prices have increased through increased production costs, let us consider that in April 1946 the prices


board permitted an increase in the price of pig iron. That was an increase of $5 a ton. I believe that on that occasion I pointed out that it was a dangerous move owing to the fact that iron entered into the construction of so many commodities of great importance. As I recall it, I advocated at that time that, if it were found necessary to give an increase of $5 a ton by way of remuneration to the steel companies, such increase should take the form of a government subsidy, the money to be drawn from the consolidated revenue fund. I am still of the opinion that that procedure should have been adopted.
Just let us think of the vast number of commodities in Canada the production costs of which are directly affected by an increase in the cost of iron and steel. It would be a most impressive list, if it were detailed before the house.
Because of the tremendous number of commodities, the cost of production of which was forced up by the increase in the price of steel, there was both a direct and an indirect effect upon the price of a vastly greater number of commodities. To make matters worse there was a strike of steelworkers in 1946. They said, in effect, "Well, if the steel companies are going to have more money, then we are going to get our share of it." They struck and, if my memory is correct, they remained on strike for eighty-two days, during which time there was tremendous loss of production in the country. This might have been the factor which determined finally that production would not keep pace with or catch up with consumption in this country. At any rate the steelworkers' strike set an example to other workers all across Canada, and a standard from which they could judge their incomes. Either through strikes or through threats of strikes wage increases became impressive, and were made almost all across the board.
I fear these movements were the factors which put the price structure of Canada on the skids. As everyone knows today we see price increases taking place throughout the nation in a completely bewildering fashion. Let us consider for instance the recent increase in the price of bread. Already at this time today some of the bread companies have increased the price of a loaf of bread by one cent, and many others are expecting to follow this example.
I am told by one who I believe is qualified to judge that, even after this present increase is made by the bread companies, they will not be in as favourable a position as they were when they made a similar advance of one cent per loaf during the summer of 1950.

As a result of the advance in 1950, Miss Jean I. Hamilton, corresponding secretary of the Canadian association of consumers in Toronto, wrote to Arthur May, executive secretary of the national council of the baking industry, protesting against that one-cent increase, and expressing the opinion that it was something of an outrage, for which no justification could be shown.
On September 7, 1950, Mr. May wrote a letter in reply to Miss Hamilton. I think the people throughout the country would be interested in reading certain passages from that letter-one which I believe every member of parliament received. It is addressed to Miss Hamilton at 32 Alvin avenue, Toronto, and states:
"I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 29 on the subject of increased prices for ingredients going into the manufacture of bread.
The baking industry has been experiencing cost increases on a continuing and cumulative basis since the beginning of this year. The selling price for one product is, of course, the cost price for those using the product in question, and the increased costs which bakers have experienced reflect in a general way the widespread increases that have occurred in the cost of living.
It is not possible for me to give you details of these cost increases for all the many raw materials and services which bakers employ, but the following represent a few of the more important items:
Lard-The wholesale price of lard has increased since June from 12J cents per pound to 221 cents.
Shortening

The wholesale price of shortening has increased from 26 cents to 32^ cents per pound.
Sugar-Wholesale prices have increased from $8.40 to $9.86 per 100 pounds.
Milk powder-Roller process has increased from 8J cents per pound to 13-14 cents.
Spray process has increased from 10 to 16 cents per pound.
Malt products have increased about one cent per pound.
Raisins have increased from $11.76 per 100 pounds to $14.50.
Salt has increased 33 cents per 100 pounds (arising out of the last freight rate increase).
Shipping cartons have increased (on September 4) by approximately 10 per cent.
Waxed paper has increased in August by approximately 3 per cent."
Today I was speaking with a man prominent in the baking industry who said that since the time that letter was written, September 7, 1950, the increases in costs of these various commodities affecting the cost have been even more striking than they had been up to that time. The letter continues, in another passage:
Further, labour costs have been climbing. It is a fact that those bakers whose shops are unionized invariably experience hourly wage increases and company paid benefits on every contract re-negotiation. Apart from this, bakers are increasing wages and salaries on an individual employee basis continuously. It is difficult to arrive at an estimate
The Address-Mr. Blackmore for increased labour costs, but it is very substantial and certainly not less than the rate of increase which has occurred for raw materials. Nor is the end in sight. I think it is reasonable to assume that there is absolutely no prospect for lower labour costs in the baking industry, and every probability that labour costs will continue to climb.
Finally, mention should1 be made of the cost increases which are manifold and which have occurred for the variety of miscellaneous goods and services which the baking industry require in the manufacture and distribution of their products. Fuel costs are up-both coal and oil have again risen in recent months. Truck replacement and maintenance are up sharply. Truck tires, for example, have been subject to the following increase:	December 7J per cent, May 15 per cent, July 'll per cent and August 20 per cent. A list of all such cost increases would be endless but these two examples are typical.
I should like to quote the final paragraph of the letter, which reads:
I wish I could give the members of your organization assurance that even after the recent increases bread prices would go no higher. Unfortunately, I cannot. If the present inflationary trends continue for raw materials and labour which bakers employ, further price increases will become inevitable. And no one will deplore this more than the baker. The record shows that the sale of bakery products is extremely sensitive to the law of diminishing returns. Higher prices invariably result in lowered sales volume. But bakers are not magicians, and it is beyond their power to continue long to exist if they do not adjust their prices consistent with their costs. Certainly them profit margins have always been, and are today, so small that they simply cannot absorb any substantial measure of further cost increases.
Yours very truly,
National Council of Baking Industry (Signed) Arthur May
For any government agency, any banker, any financier or any economist in Canada to indulge in propaganda in order to try to convince the people of Canada that the cause of these rises in the cost of living is the fact that there is too much money in circulation is for that person to manifest either ignorance or dishonesty.
This is the first thing we have to face. This increase in cost of living has been the result of action by this government right here in Canada in permitting freight rate and other increases. This government has allowed freight rate increases which have resulted in a wide variety of annoying increases in the cost of living and the cost of producing all over Canada-outside of Ontario and Quebec. For the government to pretend that these advances in cost are the result of too much money in circulation I say is to insult the Canadian people and is a downright shame. If we face the facts we will not be talking about the laying on of taxation to draw off surplus purchasing power which is said to be the cause of these enormous increases in prices.

The Address-Mr. Blackmore I will not argue that increased purchasing power in the hands of the people does not have something to do with it.
I do not think it would be wise to go into this matter any further at the present time. Sufficient is contained in that letter to cause us to think. I have given the Social Credit proposals and now I should like to summarize them. We urge that there should be an increase in production to make our country more and more self-supporting. That suggestion has been urged upon the government by a number of agencies, and I think every hon. member knows that such is the case. For example, we have the Canadian Bank of Commerce monthly commercial letter for November, 1950, urging greater production. We have organizations such as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association urging increases in production. Therefore we Social Crediters are not unique in urging this increase in production.
My own feeling has been, and it was during the war, that there are altogether too many annoying taxes and restrictions of various kinds that are interfering with production in the country. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has indicated that he is aware of this and is apparently prepared to clear all such regressive taxation from the statute books of the future. I hope he will be able to do that and not have to yield to the importunities of some group within the cabinet or elsewhere who might urge a different course.
We in Canada are capable of producing many more of the things we need1; in fact we are capable of producing sufficient of most things for our needs. All we have to do is to give our producers encouragement and the guarantee that they will not be destroyed by some change in regulation which will render it impossible for them to sell their product in Canada at a remunerative price. The more nearly we can become independent in the matter of production, the safer we are going to be in the days now coming along.
Second, the Social Credit group urge that little if any increased taxation shall be used to draw off surplus purchasing power. Both of the points I have mentioned are clearly indicated in the list of proposals which I gave at the outset of my speech. There is no need to go into them further.
I repeat, third, we urge that there should be over-all price control with continuous adjustments to make for equity toward all groups, both of producers and consumers.
It is of the first importance in this critical time in our history that every group in this nation shall realize that there is a definite
responsibility on every individual to produce all that can possibly be produced and do everything possible to prevent increased prices. If we cannot get our people to realize the gravity of this fact, then we face perilous times indeed. If we can pull together as a great co-operative union, if we each agree to do our part to make this nation the great powerful factor for stabilization in the world that it is capable of being, then I believe that we have no need for fear of the future supplies of goods and services at prices we all can afford, or with respect to the part we are to play in the powerful dramas which appear about to be enacted all over the world. I hope that all our people, producers and labourers, can come to realize that the more we force up the cost of living the more we endanger this wonderful Canada, so dear to us all.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) have given us the government's view of the present situation and set out the objectives of our country and the prospects for peace. In their endeavours in this connection, as well as in their statements, I feel sure that I voice the views of all hon. members of this house, of all the people of this country as well as a great number of peoples of other countries, when I say that in all those endeavours they made to maintain and preserve peace they had our strong united support.
Our purpose is peace, and it is for this purpose only that the government thinks it right to recommend to this house and to the country these further measures to increase the state of preparedness of ourselves and our allies.
The Canadian government's defence program put before you tonight results directly from the world situation. That program is intended to provide, as Canada's part of an effective deterrent against aggression, what is considered necessary at this time for the defence of Canada against attack and to carry out Canada's undertakings under the charter of the United Nations and the North Atlantic treaty to the full.
Put together, these plans are intended to provide for nearly one hundred ships in the navy, manned and equipped, forty regular and auxiliary squadrons in the air force,
[Mr. Blackmore.l

the equivalent of over a division in the army, and in all three services, administrative and training establishments and equipment and stores which with current production will enable us to meet the shock of mobilization, and all this in addition to furnishing our allies with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment to strengthen their forces in our common defence.
This is a three-year program to involve the expenditure during that period of some $5 billion.
Many times it has been said that war is not inevitable. Neither is peace certain. This large expenditure, almost four times as great as the expenditure voted last year, is felt to be justified as the increased premium to ensure peace. The Canadian government's view is that the chance of maintaining peace will increase as the forces opposed to aggression become stronger. That belief is shared by our eleven allies under the North Atlantic treaty.
Since parliament adjourned on September 15, a great deal has happened to affect the international climate. These developments have been dealt with by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. While no one can clearly penetrate the dark curtain of the uncertain future, most people assume that the risk of a general war is greater than it was when we last met five months ago.
Because of that view, all of the North Atlantic treaty countries have separately and together re-examined the position of their defences.
Canada's defence objectives.-While the situation has changed, the objectives of our foreign policy and of our defence program remain the same.
The object of our foreign policy is to preserve peace and to build up the broad foundations of security which are essential to the prosperity, the welfare and the happiness of our own and other people. In dealing with foreign or defence policy it must never be forgotten that the ultimate object of all our efforts is human welfare. In so far as we can do so consistently with national and international security, we must press forward with everything that will build up the good society here and everywhere else.
The objectives of our national defence are simple and clear. They are: (1) The immediate defence of Canada and North America from direct attack; (2) the implementation of any undertakings made by Canada under the charter of the United Nations, or under the North Atlantic treaty or other agreement for collective security; (3) the organization to build up our strength in a total war.
The Address-Mr. Claxton
Let us examine each of these in turn.
Defence of Canada against direct attack.- As has been said many times, if a war should come, the government believes that the best place to defend Canada would be as far away from our shores as possible. Consequently, everything we do for the collective defence is done for the defence of Canada herself. But to make that possible, we must do what is feasible to make this continent secure from attack.
Russian medium bombers of the B-29 type could reach pretty well any part of North America on a one-way trip and, under certain conditions, reach some parts of North America and return. This being the case, it is quite likely that in a general war Russia would launch bombing attacks against North America either with atomic or conventional weapons.
' There is no way of making a continent of seven million square miles impregnable or impenetrable with a kind of aerial Maginot line. Radar and fighters, combined in a heroic team, won the battle of Britain; but despite the heavy concentration of air defences in that small area, many enemy aircraft got through.
To meet the possibility of air attack, our services are working in close co-operation with the United States. A screen of stations with the latest and most powerful radar apparatus is being built, connected with a network of communications and backed up by squadrons of fighters. The American and Canadian chains will be linked together to form a single system, of which about one-quarter will be in Canada.
If the question is asked why this radar and fighter defence is not already fully operational, it is because the radar, the type of communications selected and the aircraft- the F-86 Sabre and the CF-100 Canuck-have only recently been developed and have not yet been produced in the numbers required. As fast as aircraft can be produced, regular and auxiliary fighter squadrons will be manned and equipped to war strength. In the interim, the R.C.A.F. has mobile radar sets and Vampire and Mustang fighters.
To supplement these air defences the army has a large stock of heavy anti-aircraft guns to be manned by active and reserve force personnel.
In addition to attack by air, it might be possible for an enemy to land airborne troops by a surprise attack on an airfield or by parachute. To meet this possibility the Canadian army has a specially-trained airborne brigade group. For much the same purpose the United States has similar but larger formations. It is noteworthy that none of

The Address-Mr. Claxton these formations was moved to Korea because they were specially trained and earmarked for this particular type of continental defence
In support of the regular forces and to take action to prevent sabotage are the reserve forces as well as the R.C.M.P. and other police.
In continental defence the navy is respon sible for the protection of coastal sea lanes and shipping against enemy action, including mines, and for the vital task of keeping our harbours and approaches open. Ships and installations are being constructed to discharge this role. The R.C.A.F. is building up a number of maritime squadrons for antisubmarine work.
Civil defence.-Because of the possibility of direct attack, it is necessary for us to take precautions for civil defence. Military defence has as its objective the defeat of the enemy and the defence of the country against direct attack. The object of civil defence is to reduce the consequences of enemy action upon civilian population and property.
Because of the immense area of Canada and because of its constitutional structure, civil defence is a matter calling for the close co-operation of federal, provincial and municipal authorities. A large part of civil defence is the result of organizing the manpower and material resources already existing in each community. In the very nature of things the agency for action in civil defence, here as in other countries, must be the local municipal authority. That position was agreed to by the representatives of all the provinces at a conference held here last September.
Following that conference a pamphlet on civil defence organization was issued. It incorporates the main conclusions of our discussions as well as suggestions made by provincial representatives. Civil defence organizations have been set up by most of the provincial governments and many municipalities are taking action. The first staff course is now in progress in Hull. That is a nationwide staff course attended by representatives of all ten provinces. We are arranging for co-ordination of civil defence activities with the United States. Orders are being placed for equipment of various types.
One question of concern is the division of financial responsibility for this special equipment and to deal with this and other matters relating to civil defence co-ordination, the representatives of the provincial governments have been asked to meet here on February 20 if that date is convenient to them.
I come now to the support of the United Nations and North Atlantic treaty. This is the second objective of our national defence.

Action taken by the Canadian armed forces to carry out the objectives of the charter of the United Nations and the North Atlantic treaty must be regarded as action taken for the defence of Canada.
To assist the United Nations forces in Korea Canada sent three destroyers and they have given a good account of themselves. They are being successively replaced by other destroyers.
The 426 heavy transport squadron gave great assistance in the arduous airlift to the Far East.
The Canadian army enlisted 10,000 men for an eighteen months term for the special purpose of carrying out any undertaking by Canada under the charter of the United Nations and the North Atlantic treaty. With 900 men posted from the regular active force they form the Canadian Army special force. Appropriate arrangements will be made for officers and men who wish to do so to become part of the regular force.
One unit of the special force, the second battalion of the Princess Patricias, is in Korea.
The remainder of the special force is continuing its training at Fort Lewis and will be available for service where required.
Western Europe.-Without minimizing the significance of the character of the fighting in Korea, it is the view of this and the other allied governments that the vital centre of our global defence is in western Europe. It was in recognition of this strategic necessity that the North Atlantic treaty was entered into by twelve nations less than two years ago.
North Atlantic treaty organization.-Because of its importance to Canada, it is necessary to deal for a few minutes with the development of the North Atlantic treaty organization.
People are apt to overlook how rapid has been the acceleration that has taken place in the march of events. It was only at the meeting of the council of the North Atlantic treaty organization, held at New York as recently as last September, that the United States gave great leadership in suggesting the establishment in western Europe of an integrated force under a supreme commander. The United States representatives stated that if such a force were created the United States would add substantially to the number of American troops in Europe. This proposal for the first time created the possibility of having in Europe forces strong enough to deter aggression. That was barely five months ago.
You will remember that in the treaty the member nations agreed that an act of aggression against any of them would be an act of aggression against all, to be resisted by all.

The Address-Mr. Claxton
To effect co-ordination under the treaty there was the council of foreign ministers. There were also set up a committee of defence ministers, a committee of finance ministers, a military production and supply board, with numerous subordinate committees, and a committee of deputies of the council. This organization was elaborate enough on the civilian side but it was duplicated on the military side by the military committee of the chiefs of staff of all twelve nations with an executive standing group representing the chiefs of staff of Britain, France and the United States. In addition, there were five regional groups each with corresponding military set-ups. It is not surprising that there has been criticism of this organization as overelaborate, but progress is being made in its simplification.
NATO progress.-At its September meeting the council approved the American suggestions and referred them to the defence ministers.
At Washington in October the defence committee approved a plan for the defence of the five regions of NATO. These are the western European, northern European, southern European, north Atlantic ocean and Canada-United States regions.
The defence plan for the first time set out particulars of the requirements for defence; it showed to what extent those requirements could be met; it also showed the allocations of forces that might be contributed by each of the member nations.
At that meeting agreement was not reached as to the participation of western Germany and this question as well as the creation of the integrated force and the appointment of a supreme commander which were considered to be in part dependent upon it were left to be decided by the defence committee when it reconvened.
Meanwhile, at the request of the defence committee, the rearmament of western Germany was considered by the deputies of the council and the military committee of chiefs of staff at their meeting in London.
These London meetings resulted in agreement, which was approved by the defence committee at a meeting held in Brussels on Monday, December 18. This was followed by a joint meeting of the defence committee and council, and the next day by a meeting of the council. It was a privilege to attend these meetings in a dual capacity, both as Minister of National Defence and as representing my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).
At the Brussels meeting Canada again raised proposals for streamlining the organization of NATO. The defence production board
was set up with more definite terms of reference to replace the military supply and production board and several other committees.
The terms of reference of the standing group were clarified. There was also established a committee of military representatives of the chiefs of staff of all twelve nations to permit continuous consultation between the standing group and representatives of the chiefs of staff of all the NATO countries.
Canada's remaining proposal that the three ministerial committees be consolidated into a single council, in which the appropriate ministers will represent their governments, is being actively considered.
When criticism is expressed of the organization of NATO it should be remembered that the first meetings to organize the twelve countries for joint defence took place just fifteen months ago.
The accomplishments of the North Atlantic treaty organization to date have been substantial:
(1) The twelve nations have agreed to act together in their common defence; (2) they have set up the organization necessary to combine their common efforts; (3) they have set up an integrated force; (4) they have appointed a supreme commander, who has already visited all the twelve countries, as well as western Germany. Our meeting here a week ago was most satisfactory with that great leader, General Eisenhower, who is now one-twelfth our general; (5) they have prepared plans of joint defence and also requirements of men and materials have been estimated and resources examined; (6) each country has indicated what it will do towards meeting these requirements.
Canada's participation in NATO.-Against this background of the organization established under the North Atlantic treaty, let us look at what Canada is doing.
Following the meeting of the defence committee at Paris in November, 1949, a Canadian offer to train army officers and aircrew for the forces of the other NATO countries was well received and arrangements were worked out under which army officers and aircrew for Belgium, France, Italy, The Netherlands and Norway are now being trained in Canada. Later the United Kingdom expressed a need for such assistance and vacancies having been made available the first British trainees arrived in Canada last month.
A further offering is being made through NATO to increase training facilities considerably.

The Address-Mr. Claxton
These facilities, together with those for training our own aircrew, will provide training for over 3,000 aircrew per year.
This operation will require the opening of additional air stations and recommencing the manufacture in Canada of large numbers of Harvard trainer aircraft and the production of aeroplane engines in this country.
The expense of training aircrew for North Atlantic treaty nations during the fiscal year 1951-52 is estimated at $64,500,000, to apply against the mutual aid appropriation made at the special session.
In addition to training aircrew officers in the numbers mentioned, we have here, now, attending the various staff colleges and other courses in this country officers from Australia, Belgium, France, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Last August Canada offered to NATO the armament and ammunition of U.K. type for a division. In November we were advised by NATO that this equipment should be supplied to the Netherlands. The equipment was overhauled, reconditioned, crated, shipped and delivered before the middle of December.
Negotiations with the United States for the purchase of corresponding American equipment have been completed and we have now offered the equipment for another division in western Europe.
The Canadian army-and I do not think this is realized-has in store or on issue most of the equipment for four divisions, even more of some weapons, and as arrangements are completed for replacement, we propose to offer successively the equipment for several more divisions.
Since there are men trained in Europe waiting for equipment, each division's equipment sent to Europe virtually adds a division's strength of equipped forces to the common deterrent force.
When he was here, General Eisenhower asked if we had 25-pounders we could put in the hands of the Luxembourg artillery regiment which was being raised.	The
following day the cabinet authorized the offer and by Monday evening arrangements had been completed both with Luxembourg and the North Atlantic treaty organization and the guns are waiting for shipment.
Speaking to an informal meeting of congress concerning the result of his tour, General Eisenhower said:
In little Luxembourg I had an unusual experience.
I think you would like to hear about it as illustrating the readiness of the nations today to try to cooperate. They are very small. There are only 300,000 people there. But they set their jaws and

said: "We will have universal military service, with no exemptions." They said, "We are very badly handicapped. We have equipment for one battalion only. What we particularly need is more artillery equipment."
And then General Eisenhower went on to say:
When I stopped in Ottawa I told the Canadians about this trouble, and the Canadians said, "Why, we have some artillery; we can ship it tomorrow." When I got to West Point a few hours later I was greeted with the information that the Canadian government had approved of the transfer, and just left the red tape to me and my staff to look after.
Apparently on this occasion we did not have any red tape here-or at least we gave him that impression.
We are placing an order here in Canada for 50,000 platoon walkie-talkie wireless sets designed in Canada to specifications agreed upon with the United Kingdom and United States and likely to be adopted as standard for all North Atlantic treaty nations. This would be the first article of standard equipment to be so adopted for all twelve nations. The Canadian forces plan to use 5,000, the other 45,000 sets being supplied to the other nations.
Canada is also manufacturing a large number of radar sets for supply to our allies. We expect to be making 155 mm. guns of U.S. pattern. We are at work today on the 3-inch 50-calibre U.S. pattern guns for the U.S. and Canadian navies.
In his statement last week General Eisenhower stressed the importance of equipment. He said this, in his broadcast:
For this purpose the most immediate need of Europe is munitions and equipment.
Every one of the continental nations I visited can rapidly and markedly increase its resistance power if it can be promptly furnished additional supplies of this kind. To fill this need, our loyal neighbour, Canada, with Britain and others, is shouldering part of the load.
We feel, however, that equipment without men is even less useful than men without equipment. For obvious reasons, it is important that all the countries concerned in our collective defence should contribute men as well as equipment to the defence of western Europe. Accordingly we propose, if parliament approves, to place in the integrated force elements of the Canadian army.
The force we propose to send will initially be a brigade group or regimental combat team, and we hope that it may arrive at about the same time as the additional U.S. forces, but this may depend on events in Korea.
Material considerations alone might suggest that there might be greater military value in spending the same amount on equipment for forces already on the spot rather than

on Canadian ground forces; but we and our allies believe that the fact of participation by the Canadian army will show more emphatically than any amount of equipment, welcome though that may be, that we stand together with our allies.
It is hoped that arrangements under discussion will permit us to rotate the men serving abroad at reasonable intervals. It is also planned to keep the numbers of supporting personnel as small as possible. How the tail often outgrows the body is well known to everyone with military experience.
In addition to whatever army forces we have in Europe, our army role in NATO is to provide a strategic reserve.
Canada's most substantial contribution to the planned force in being will be our air force participation. Air power is especially needed. One squadron is already undergoing operational training in England. This squadron is to be joined by two others to form a wing and these squadrons will be made available to the supreme commander.
We plan to have in the integrated force an air division of eleven squadrons at full fighting strength, equipped with F-86E and Canuck aircraft. To support them there will have to be a supply line of reserve aircraft, depots, training establishments, and so on. You can see that the air force participation in the integrated force will require a very large portion of our total defence budget.
The Royal Canadian Navy has an important role in the North Atlantic treaty defence plans. In addition to the defence of our harbours and coasts, the R.C.N. will participate with Britain and the United States in anti-submarine and escort work across the North Atlantic. Plans for the navy will provide the necessary ships of the latest types now under construction or those that we now have in commission or reserve, all rearmed, refitted and recommissioned. In this way we expect to be able to carry out our allotted share of North Atlantic defence with nearly 100 ships equipped and manned.
NATO prospects.-The role of Canada in the North Atlantic treaty organization has now been determined in consultation with the other eleven nations. Canada intends to do everything necessary to carry out that role. The program put forward here includes everything necessary to do that.
We are approaching this common effort in the same spirit as our other partners. We believe that if we all do as much as we can we will be able to build1 up the strength necessary to deter aggression or defeat an enemy. In ground forces or in the air this strength has still to be built up, but there are other
The Address-Mr. Claxton important factors which count in the balance when nations come to weigh their chances, including the atomic bomb and the ability to deliver it.
General Eisenhower had this to say:
In military potential, the free nations have everything they need-natural resources, industrial genius, productive capacity, and great reservoirs of leadership ability. Given the ingredient of morale .-the determination to combine for mutual protection-the military strength necessary will be produced at a speedy pace. With every increase in strength, there will be an upward thrust in morale, an evermounting spiral of confidence and security.
The third objective of our defence efforts is to have the administrative staff, the training establishments, the nucleus of trained officers and N.C.O.'s, the supply depots and everything else needed for mobilization.
Because this has been set down as one of the objectives of our national defence, there have been references to what others have called "the nuclear theory of defence". There isn't any such theory. In every country, the full potential fighting strength of the nation is developed only if war begins.
The Canadian forces have today mobilization plans and administrative and training staffs, supply depots, arms and a good many of the things needed for rapid1 mobilization.
Equipment.-This report indicates something of the size of the equipment program now under way and gaining momentum from day to day.
To meet these requirements a new department of the government, the Department of Defence Production, is being proposed. In the first nine months of the present fiscal year, which ended on December 31, 1950,
80,000	orders were actually placed with industry. During this period orders have been placed with trade and commerce, for the sum of $701 million.
The main items are:
Aircraft, $331 million; ships, $96 million; radar and' wireless, $50 million; clothing and textiles, $35 million; motor vehicles, $50 million; armament, $26 million; construction, $113 million.
In the year before the second world war the Department of National Defence spent $34,432,839, and even during 1939-40 only $125 million. It has been suggested that the position of defence industry today corresponds to what it was about two years after the beginning of the last war but with much greater potential capacity.
Additional orders are being placed for ships, seaward1 defences, electronic devices and wireless, for army equipment of U.S. pattern, for aircraft, including Harvard trainers and engines.
96	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Claxton
As hon. members who visit the plant at Canadair Limited will see tomorrow, new aircraft are beginning to roll oil the production lines.
These large expenditures on equipment are brought about by the staggering cost of modern equipment. Some figures about these costs have already been made public.
A new anti-submarine vessel costs over $8 million; a two-engine fighter, $750,000; a single engine jet interceptor, over $400,000; a new airfield with runways, buildings and equipment, $20 million; a radar station with buildings and equipment, from $3 million to $6 million.
Reference has been made to the equipment we are producing and the men we are training for the North Atlantic treaty nations out of the appropriation of $300 million voted last year. Most of this appropriation has either been already committed or is covered by orders for equipment and plans for services now being arranged for.
Part of our equipment program will be to replace the equipment we are sending to Europe by equipment of U.S. pattern.
Canada has had greater reason than any country to feel strongly about the need for standardization. One obstacle was the large quantities of U.K.-type equipment we already have on issue or in mobilization stores-most of the armament for four divisions.
This equipment was of the kind needed to strengthen the defences of Europe, where there were trained men with empty hands.
It occurred to us that Canada could make a very substantial contribution to collective defence by shipping this equipment to them. This also was the only practical way for us to standardize on U.S. pattern. As related above, the armament for a division has already been shipped. Our offer of 25-pounders to Luxembourg has been accepted. Our offer of another division's equipment is under consideration. The rest will be supplied, including probably a large number of antiaircraft guns, as arrangements are made to replace the equipment by purchase in the United States or production in Canada.
By this means we hope to, first, strengthen the defences of Europe immediately; second, help to keep these forces standardized on U.K.-type equipment; third, expedite standardization of our own forces on U.S. type and, finally, tool up Canadian industry for the production of further equipment of U.S. pattern.
This in itself will' do much to co-ordinate our defence production with the United States. We expect, however, that there will be further development of this character all along the line.
[Mr. Claxton.)

Defence research.-Defence research activity is to be correspondingly increased both to meet the increased needs of the forces and to expedite programs which had been planned for a longer period.
Like all our defence activities, defence research and development is planned and carried out in close co-operation with our allies, including particularly Britain and the United States. Except in so far as it may be required by actual operations, there is no duplication between the work done in the three countries.
Defence research in Canada gives particular emphasis to anti-submarine equipment, antitank weapons, wireless equipment and similar fields in which Canada made a notable contribution during the second world war and in which Canadian scientists and industry have special qualifications.
Construction. - We have already placed orders this year for $113 million worth of construction.
Next year the figure will be more than twice as much, made necessary both for additional operational buildings and living accommodation for the expanding forces.
Today the accommodation for men living in barracks is full to overflowing at every place where accommodation is needed. For every man joining the forces today, additional construction is required. That means about $2,000 per man for construction.
Manpower.-Turning to the vital question of manpower, and womanpower too, three years ago there were in the department and services working full time either as service or civilian personnel a total of 54,000. Today that figure is just short of 90,000, an increase of 67 per cent.
To carry through these plans during the next three years the strengths of the three services should be increased to about 115,000 full-time active service personnel and about
33,000	civilians, the civilians being largely employed in work in the dockyards and shops and on construction. This will be an increase of about the same amount, about 67 per cent above present strength.
Because of the large requirements of the R.C.A.F. not only in building up to its total of 40 regular and auxiliary squadrons, but also in the training services, the R.C.A.F. will, we expect, have more men than the army has today and will be spending nearly as much as the other two services put together.
The strength of the navy will be doubled.
The army will show substantial increases.
During the last six months of 1950 the active forces enlisted, including the special

The Address-Mr. Claxton
force, a total of 17,772 officers and men. Through retirement and discharge there was a total of 2,879, making a net increase of 14,893, an average of 2,482 per month.
During the month of January 1951, officers and men joining totalled 3,354; there was a decrease by retirement or discharges of 830, making a net increase of 2,524.
With a rate anything like that, the over-all requirements of this program should be met by the planned dates with men provided to man the ships, the guns and the aircraft as these are produced.
However, there will be some shortages, which will call for great efforts to overcome.
Meeting these manpower requirements is going to require a big effort and the wholehearted support of all sections of the population.
Summary of program.-Now let me draw together in the most summary form what this program is for each of the three services.
The program envisaged by the government calls for its completion within three years but the job is intended to be carried through just as fast as it can be done.
The program has fifteen main points.
In the navy.-
1.	Nearly 100 ships and many small craft, either new or refitted and newly armed.
2.	Permanent seaward defences of vital harbours.
3.	The shipbuilding industry geared to produce additional ships rapidly.
4.	Administrative and training staffs, depots and stores, for all-out mobilization.
In the army.-
5.	An airborne striking force, anti-aircraft artillery and other units for the defence of Canada against direct attack.
6.	Part of the active army with integrated force under General Eisenhower.
7.	Part of the Canadian forces continuing in the Far East as long as that is necessary.
8.	The administrative staff, training establishments, depots, stores, clothing and equipment to provide for rapid mobilization in a total effort.
9.	Replacement of equipment on issue to active or reserve forces, or in stores, by latest type United States equipment purchased from the United States or made in Canada and our industry in Canada tooled up to make a considerable part of this equipment.
In the air force.-
10.	Forty regular and reserve squadrons with more than 3,000 aircraft additional to those we now have of the types suitable for the purposes intended.
11.	Radar equipment manned and located to provide radar defence integrated with a corresponding United States chain of stations, connected by the necessary communication system and backed by fighters.
12.	In Europe an air division of 11 fighter squadrons, included in the 40.
13.	Airfields, men and equipment to train large numbers of aircrew for ourselves and other countries.
14.	Industry in a position to produce large numbers of the latest types of aircraft needed by the forces of ourselves and others.
15.	Production of quantities of equipment for NATO and training of large numbers of officers to strengthen our common defence by assisting our allies.
If time permitted, sir, I might deal with a number of the other parts of the program which will be put forward during the course of this session, including of course the necessary and proper emphasis on the work of our reserve forces. Tonight I felt it would be the wish of this house, and of the country, that the main lines of the whole program should be set out in a broad way.
This whole program involves an increase in the number of service and civilian personnel employed full time on defence from the present figure of about 90,000 to a total of about 148,000.
That is the program, a large one for a country of 14 million people still involved in developing its natural resources and also facing the task of maintaining essential services over an area of 3} million square miles.
Should it be required, there will be the capacity to expand further rapidly because of the emphasis on training establishments, depots and other essential services.
The cost.-Now, finally, what is the cost?
It is not usual under our system to announce the figures of any estimates before the estimates are tabled by the Minister of Finance, which is usually done after the conclusion of the debate on the address.
But this is not a usual time.
Defence expenditures four years ago were $194 million. This year we appropriated in the original estimate $425 million, and then added in the supplementary estimates $142,200,000, making a total appropriated this year of $567 million, which we expect to spend. Then there was in addition part of the $300 million voted for mutual aid. Next year defence, including mutual aid, will require about $1,600 million.
The three-year program outlined will involve the expenditure, in all matters of the defence of Canada, and our participation in the common effort, of over $5 billion.

The Address-Mr. Pearkes
One point I want to emphasize. The program and the plans I have outlined are all subject to change as the world situation changes.
We in Canada cannot control that situation; ail the nations of the free world cannot control it. We cannot hope to have security unless we are free to adapt our plans and our programs to meet new situations which can -and may-be created at any time by the potential aggressor.
Korea created a new situation and we changed our plans to meet it. It is of vital importance to keep our minds free to make further changes and different plans whenever they are needed.
This report of the government's program should make it clear to every one of the Canadian people that its accomplishment is not going to be an easy task. It means a greatly increased call, indeed a demand, on the armed services themselves and on all the human and material resources of the country. But Canada has always met every challenge and the confident determination to meet the threat of communist expansion will be, and here I am sure I express the feeling of everyone in this house, the dominant feeling of the Canadian people.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that there were a certain number of seats vacant on this side of the house when the minister started to make his speech was no indication that there was any lack of interest on the part of members of the official opposition in the subject under discussion nor was it intended in any way as a token of disrespect to the minister. This was the last opportunity we had of saying goodby to a comrade who has meant so much to us and whose advice has been invaluable to the party in which he was such an ornament and to the constituency which he represented. I of course refer to the departure of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), who leaves this city this evening.
Like the majority of Canadian citizens, I suppose, I am somewhat mystified and bewildered by the statements which have been made by the ministers of the crown with respect to the international situation. As one reads those statements, one cannot help feeling that here is some conflict of ideas and some uncertainty, even amongst the cabinet ministers, as to the gravity of the present international situation. Speaking for myself, coming as I do from the Pacific coast, from probably the most exposed and the most vulnerable province at the present time and


one in which there is probably less preparation than elsewhere to resist enemy aggression, I am impressed with the gravity and the seriousness of the situation.
Living in British Columbia are a great many retired army men and civil servants who have had long experience with the administration of British affairs in Asian countries. They are familiar with the background of what has been going on in India, in Malaya and in China, and they realize that there is a new awakening of the peoples of Asia such as has not happened for centuries. In the new China they see a nationalism coupled with an imperialistic spirit, a demand amongst the peasants of China, for the first time in centuries, that something be done for China. They realize that there is growing up in that continent a feeling of confidence and a feeling which can perhaps be described as almost a disregard of the powers and principles of the western countries. The feeling of the young Chinese of today, in their communist armies and in their positions of government, is one of great arrogance; and it is of little use talking about the western powers losing face in China today. It would seem that they have lost face, at least temporarily.
But we are not so greatly impressed by the dangers in Asia as to lose sight of the paramount importance of western Europe. It was only a couple of weeks ago that I had the great privilege of spending several hours with Mr. Paul Henri Spaak, the former premier of Belgium. He certainly impressed upon me the dangers in which the people of northwest Europe are living. He also impressed upon me the difficulties that they have of selling to their people the need of having a strong heart and of being prepared to resist communist aggression. One point he stressed was that while the people of France, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg were prepared to hold the gun and the bayonet, they would do so with much greater heart if they saw United States and Canadian soldiers alongside them.
Judging from the remarks made by the minister tonight, it is obvious that he visualizes Canada's having three objectives in so far as her defence forces are concerned, the first being that of the defence of Canada; the second being that of providing assistance to the United Nations and particularly to the North Atlantic treaty countries; and the third being that of the preparation for total war. For one who has risen in this house, year after year, and stressed the importance of Canada's being ready to defend her own shores, it was encouraging to hear the minister recognize the importance of that task for our defence forces. In the past we have

The Address-Mr. Pearkes
heard that the only danger facing Canada is that of some diversionary raid. I have never subscribed to that theory. I have always believed it was possible for enemy bombers- we have a range of forty-five hundred miles -to carry out upon the cities of this country raids of a far more substantial nature than those that might be classed as diversionary. I am encouraged to hear the minister admit that such a danger does exist and that he places as the number one requisite for our defence forces the need of protecting the cities of this country against such raids. As he said, the B-29's of the Russian air force are capable of attacking the majority of the cities of Canada, particularly if they are prepared to carry out refuelling operations in the air en route, which it is perfectly possible for them to do.
The second requirement that he mentioned was that of supplying forces to the North Atlantic treaty nations. He mentioned a modest contribution of armed forces; in so far as the army is concerned a brigade group or regimental combat team. As he said, they might be sent to Europe in the immediate future. Then he just touched upon the steps which would be taken to prepare for the total war if in our lifetime we are to be faced with a third world war.
To meet all these requirements it will be necessary, as the minister said, to provide a great deal of money, and to provide a very considerable expansion of the actual number of serving soldiers, sailors and airmen. The minister adroitly skated around the question as to how he was going to raise the men to provide for this necessary expansion. The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) told us how he was not going to raise these forces at the present time. I suppose if the Prime Minister was in a generous mood he would probably describe me as being one of those sincere and patriotic personages who might advocate other and more positive methods of raising those particular forces to meet the requirements.
I realize that the government is responsible for the method that it adopts in order to meet this situation. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe I am sincere and patriotic; and because the responsibility rests upon the government, and even though I might hold different views as to the methods by which these forces should be raised, I think it would be detrimental at this time to advocate strongly methods which the government is not prepared to follow, because I believe it is of paramount importance that the government raise the men that it requires, and the government alone will say by what method it will raise those men. I for one would be loath to utter a word which would discourage 80709-7 j
any man from joining those forces, or in any way put any hindrance in the way of the national effort carried out by the methods recommended by the government to meet what I consider to be a grave situation.
It would, however, seem to me only common prudence that the government should at this time set up the machinery which may be necessary to accelerate its method of enlistment, its method of assigning the manpower of the country to the various services and to industry, agriculture, transport and all the rest of it. If these steps are left to the eleventh hour I feel that it will not be possible to take full advantage of the resources of this country, both in manpower and in materials. Therefore I feel there is no time to be lost in carrying out a review both of our assets and of our deficiencies. I feel that that review should be carried out at once so that the government will be in a position to change its present method of providing for the expansion which has been indicated, should the methods that it proposes to follow immediately fail, or should the situation deteriorate to such an extent that other methods would have to be followed. There is no time to be lost in making the preparations and in setting up the machinery so that a more vigorous system of supplying the material and the personnel for expansion can be followed, and to set up this machinery there are many requirements. For instance, during this winter we have seen the necessity of sending the brigade which is being organized for Korea to a foreign country, to the United States, in order to carry out its training. That brigade has gone to Fort Lewis in Washington, chiefly I understand because no camps were available in this country where
10,000	men could be trained.
The camp at Fort Lewis was vacated only a very short time before the Canadian troops arrived there. It was vacated by the second United States division which had gone overseas to Korea, and so this camp was available. It is essentially a staging camp. It could hardly be described as an ideal training camp. It is certainly not an ideal training camp for a theatre of war such as Korea. It is a flat gravel plain, heavily wooded, having an extent of some 100,000 acres. There is no opportunity for the troops to train in mountain warfare, and the Korean theatre of war is one in which there are mountain ranges and barren hills, no heavily wooded, flat plains.
There is no opportunity at Fort Lewis for combined training to the extent that companies or battalions would be able to carry out field firing exercises with all the supporting arms such as anti-tank weapons and field
100	HOUSE OF
' The Address-Mr. Pearkes artillery. Actually the field artillery of that brigade group had to go to Yakima, 180 miles away from Fort Lewis, in order to carry out their firing practices. They have just returned. They can carry out exercises with their infantry only of a most elementary nature, firing down what might toe described as a rifle range, so that their own artillery mounted on a rise can fire in a very restricted area.
I believe therefore that the provision of camps is one of the most essential features in any plan to take care of the expansion of our army. The need for more instructors is of paramount importance. Second battalions of the Royal Canadian regiment, the Princess Patricias and the Royal 22nd regiment were trained and supplied with instructors, in the main, from their first battalions. The third battalions of those regiments, which are also in training at Fort Lewis, had to obtain their instructors from the A. & T. staffs of the reserve army. Today they are very short of instructors.
Then, there are more elementary things, such as uniform attestation papers among the three services, and all the need for co-ordinating the manpower effort between those. Finally there is the urgent need of impressing upon all services the importance of thorough medical examination before the men are enlisted. Anyone who has had any experience with veterans' affairs in the last few years will realize how many men there are who are receiving a pension today on account of preenlistment disabilities aggravated by war service in the last world war. Today Canada is paying pensions to thousands of men who had pre-enlistment conditions which were aggravated by their service overseas. In the recruitment of the Korean force there was the same urge to bring units up to strength, and the same lack of facilities for medical examination which was so clearly marked at the beginning of the second world war.
I am not suggesting for one moment that all those pensioners who today draw pensions for pre-enlistment conditions aggravated by service would not have been taken. Of course you would have taken a chance with some of them. Yet, there are a great many who would never have been taken into the Canadian army in the early days of the second world war had there been proper facilities for carrying out more thorough medical examination.
If we are visualizing further expansion, such as the minister has told us we may expect-and such as it is quite obvious we must expect-then I urge upon him that we


should take the preliminary step necessary to ensure that these conditions can be carried out most effectively.
So far as the Korean force is concerned, there are today hundreds of men who were enlisted but who have since been discharged because it has been found that they did not measure up to the physical standards required, although they had been originally accepted.
I said earlier that I realize it is the government's responsibility to apply the methods it endorses in order to bring about the expansion indicated, and that I had no intention whatever of trying to put forward alternative means, and of stressing those means. I believe that in so doing we might retard the national effort. However, I intend to make one or two suggestions which I trust may be of some help to the minister who has to bear this grave responsibility.
I am encouraged in this because in the past I have made certain suggestions in the house. I could not help noticing that, perhaps after a lapse of many months, they have been adopted. One of the most recent was that of appointing an over-all chief of staff, a procedure I advocated with some force in the house some two years ago. I have already mentioned that I had called attention to the fact that some of our cities were in danger. Also at one time I stressed the fact that it was regrettable that we had allowed our women's division to cease functioning, and that there was an opportunity to utilize it.
All these things are now being put into effect. While I am not naive enough to believe that I was the only one who recommended those steps, or that I am the only person advocating those points I shall mention from now on, I take courage from the results which have been achieved in the past.
It was my good fortune to be in the state of Washington on January 25 and 26, just a few days before the opening of the session. I took the opportunity at that time of asking the commander of the Canadian special brigade if he would permit me to see the progress the troops were making, and to get some idea as to the efficiency of those units, and the state of their training. I received a most cordial invitation from Brigadier Rockingham, and received every courtesy from him and his staff, and from the commanding officers of the various units at Fort Lewis.
I want to say, without the slightest doubt or uncertainty in the matter, that in the person of the commander of that brigade Canada has a man in whom we can place great confidence, and one who is supported by a group of young staff officers who are well educated

in the military art, who are keen and conscientious; that he has commanding officers of the five battalions and supporting units that I saw who have great personalities and powers of command; and that the Canadian people have there units which are a first-class cross-section of young Canadian manhood, who are physically content, who are interested in their work and who can be entirely relied upon to do a first-class job, no matter where ultimately they may be sent.
The special Korean brigade is one of which I feel Canada might well be proud. As a "has been" soldier I would say that they are making excellent progress in their training and have taken every advantage of the opportunities that are available to them to weld together men who before enlistment had few interests in common and who were not necessarily drawn from any particular area of Canada or from any particular class. Essentially they were Canadians who were inspired by a spirit of adventure and who were determined to do the job for which the Canadian taxpayer was paying them.
There were United States troops under training in that same camp. They were replacements, or as we would say reinforcements, for the United States second division. They were reservists, men from the National Guard. When those men took their discharge after world war II they volunteered to have their names placed on the reserve list and if opportunity presented to do a certain amount of training which would be comparable to the training carried on in our reserve units.
These United States replacements were being put through an eighteen-day intensive refresher course and then, because of the need for men, were being sent direct to Korea. I hope the day will never come when Canadians will have to be sent into a theatre of war with only an eighteen-day refresher course. The one thing which impressed itself upon my mind more than anything else was that the United States because of unpreparedness was forced to send replacements to a division which had suffered heavy casualties with only an eighteen-day refresher course.
This refresher course was carried on in a mass production style with an instructor standing up on a platform and giving the details of some drill to hundreds of men. There was no personal instruction, or very little, given during those courses. If at times some people in Canada are apt to criticize the tactics or strategy of General MacArthur I ask them to remember the picture that I saw of those United States soldiers, ex-G.I.'s of five years ago, being sent to join their
The Address-Mr. Pearkes units in Korea after being given only eighteen days of training.
If we say that certain elements of the United States army have not fought to the bitter end in Korea, if we say that they have given ground too quickly, let us remember that the tactics of today are different from the tactics of the Ypres salient or the Somme or Passchendaele, when we contested, rightly or wrongly, every yard of ground. It is a broad question whether it would be wise to fight to the death for each barren hill in Korea. Let us remember the mixed forces that General MacArthur has under his command and that many of the soldiers of his own United States army have had very little training and that units of his army have been rather hastily collected together.
Now let us look at the other side of the camp where our Canadian brigade had been in training. That brigade had been fortunate enough to have many weeks available for training. I saw fire and movement exercises being carried out by infantry battalions. I saw the second battalion of the Royal 22nd regiment carrying out exercises from a bivouac camp. I saw anti-tank units on manoeuvres. It struck me that those units were following the pattern which had been drawn up by British armies and adhered to for centuries.
It seemed to me that the main difference between the Canadian and United States method was that the United States taught their men in the shortest possible time how to fire the particular weapon with which they were to be armed while the Canadian commanders were teaching their soldiers how to fire their weapons from the most advantageous piece of ground available so that their lives might be saved, so that they would not be expended in the first battle in which they were engaged.
It seemed to me that that was in accordance with the British tradition. All through the centuries British armies have been relatively small and British commanders have had to emphasize the importance of preserving the lives of their men. I hope that that will be the tradition of Canadian commanders in the future.
We might say, therefore, that on one side of the camp there was the urgent need of sending men into a theatre of war no matter how little training they had while on the other side there was thorough training going on which would enable the Canadian units to give a good account of themselves in battle at the least expense as far as lives were concerned.
At the present time we are in ,the position of having to change our armament from the

The Address-Mr. Pearkes British to United States type. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) told us this afternoon that we were sending great quantities of arms to the armies of western Europe. Obviously those guns and rifles must be replaced by arms and equipment manufactured on this continent. I do not think that anybody will quarrel with that policy. However, I plead most earnestly at this time that we do not follow slavishly the organization of the United States armed forces, that we do not adopt, lock, stock and barrel, the United States staff organization and the organization of their armies.
I think that any attempt to Americanize the Canadian army one hundred per cent would be viewed with dismay by the Canadian people as a whole. I am disturbed by statements that have appeared in the press within the last ten days indicating that there is a tendency to go further than is necessary in Americanizing our Canadian forces. A wholesale change at the present time would disrupt the Canadian army. So far as the infantry is concerned, it would mean that battalions of old historic regiments would lose their identity. We would have to make a complete change in our supply system. The Royal Canadian Army Service Corps would have to assume the functions of a transportation corps and quartermaster's corps in order to conform with the organization of the United States army. The Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps and the R.C.E.M.E. would be changed beyond all recognition.
Within our divisions we should have to adopt the United States system of medical services, and I think that few who have had any experience with the two systems would question that the Canadian system is superior within divisions so far as medical services are concerned. Surely the care of the wounded is one of the prime considerations of any army organization. So far as staff is concerned, we should have to adopt the United States G-l, G-2, G-3 and G-4 system instead of having a division between our general staff and administrative staff.
Coming to the higher level, in the United States army the corps has very little administrative authority over the division. If it so happened that a Canadian corps was serving with the United States army and we were organized according to their system you would find that our Canadian divisions would be administered directly from United States army headquarters. I emphasize this point because of the reports that have been circulated, and I say that any sweeping changes in our organization would be unwise and detrimental at the present time.
There will have to be minor changes. It is necessary that we accept United States


arms and equipment. If we carry United States arms then it is necessary to modify our tactics in order to make the fullest use of such arms; but with the exception of the fact that we are to be supplied by a United States pipe line I feel that no other changes should be necessary.
Finally, in comparing the two methods of training, while I realize how unacceptable it would be to the Canadian people to have our soldiers trained in eighteen days and then sent overseas, I feel that if we are to face up to the conditions of modern warfare somehow or other we must devise a system of training which will make men fit for service in a shorter period than is now allowed. I presume that the majority of commanders would say that they require at least twelve months in order to place a brigade in the field ready for action. There must be some halfway mark between the eighteen-day and the twelve-month systems of training. The way modern war is fought we may not be masters of our own destiny. As a matter of fact Russia is calling the shots and we may not have twelve months to prepare our troops of war. Therefore I suggest to the minister that he instruct his staff to consider most seriously some method of speeding up the training of our troops.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) referred to civil defence and the fact that a staff course was being conducted at the present time. He also referred to the difficulty of defining where the financial responsibility should rest so far as the dominion, provincial and municipal governments are concerned. We shall never make any real progress until that is settled and the provinces and municipalities know exactly how much of the burden is going to be borne by the federal government and what their share will be.
I throw out a final suggestion, and I do not know whether the minister will like it. In preparing for the active defence of this country he is carrying such a burden that I think he might be well advised to place civil defence under another minister.
(Translation):


Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister most sincerely for his statement of February 1, 1951, on conscription. I quote:
We know that the cost to us of maintaining one man on European soil, as part of the integrated army, is much more than the cost to the Europeans themselves of maintaining and equipping one man there. And we know that, in the production of equipment, we can get for every dollar expended as much as can be got from any dollar expended anywhere in the world, and perhaps more. We believe,

as General Eisenhower is reported to have submitted in his report to congress today, that the big need of western Europe at this time is for arms rather than for troops.
The Prime Minister did not commit himself for the future and, to me, his frank and sincere way of dealing with a question is far better than what we had been accustomed to in the recent past.
In my opinion, it would be much wiser to organize our own territorial defence and to let Europe raise a European army. We could however undertake to make maximum use of our natural resources and of the productive capacity of our industry to supply the equipment necessary for the efficient operation of the army shortly to be set up in Europe under the command of General Eisenhower.
I even think it might be advisable not to send any troops to Europe or to Korea, so as to ensure the maximum amount of productive capacity of our farms and industry. Our country has only a small population of some 15 million scattered over a territory as large as Europe. If we want to transform Canada into an arsenal and a bread-basket to supply the necessary munitions and foodstuffs to the European army, it would seem foolish to deprive ourselves of a part of our people, especially if we compare our population with that of the United States or of European countries party to the North Atlantic pact. Indeed, the government itself has admitted our shortage of manpower by stating its willingness to supply funds to bring some 150,000 European immigrants to this country. Obviously, Canadians do not like to be compelled to go to the defence of Europe while their places are being taken here by Europeans. It therefore seems unwise to send Canadian soldiers to Europe-at a cost which even the government considers excessive-in order that they might replace those immigrants.
Furthermore a force such as that made up of volunteers would necessarily find itself compelled, in case of war, to replace its casualties with conscripts. I may state with the utmost assurance that if public opinion is prepared for any sacrifice for the defence of our territory, it surely would not accept conscription for overseas service because it bears in mind the tremendous number of people in France, England, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Holland and Italy who, I am sure, want only the necessary weapons to raise
The Address-Mr. LaCroix their own forces in order to be able to fight communists in Europe. Besides, any other course would tend to lower the efficiency of the very limited population of Canada in the development of our vast natural resources, which we could put at the disposal of this European army.
Those who launched a campaign in favour of compulsory military service are being less helpful than they think to the defence of Canada against communist aggression. Canada today can be of much greater service to her allies by helping to set up a tremendous military machine, through the work of her farmers and her workers, than by sending forces to Europe, Korea or elsewhere. Campaigns in favour of conscription for service overseas can only be detrimental to the organization of our own defence. Let us not forget that, if war breaks out, our own country will at once be attacked from the Pacific and we shall certainly not be able to bring back our soldiers from Europe or Korea in time to face the music.
The campaign in favour of conscription for overseas service is bound to hurt our country by causing internal dissensions at a time when all our efforts, both military and diplomatic, must be combined if we are to face that dictator from Moscow.
Fortunately, in these dark and trying days, Canada's affairs are directed by a man, the Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent, whose characteristics of honesty, courage, and vision, vitally important for the safety of our nation, are acknowledged the world over. For goodness' sake, let us not play into the hands of our enemy by dividing our country.
Another point I wish to raise in connection with our domestic policy is the steadily rising cost of living. The government hinted in the speech from the throne that price controls are going to be established in the near future. Of course, there are serious disadvantages to this method of fighting inflation, but it is of indisputable value, when compared with the profit motive of certain monopolies that, in this country more than in any other, control the purchase, the distribution and the sale of daily essentials. Those monopolies strangely help the propaganda of communists, who turn them to account in order to convince the popular masses that in no other country in the world is wealth more unevenly distributed than in Canada and the United States.
In France, and in Europe in general, there are innumerable small shopkeepers and small manufacturers, the inevitable consequence of wise legislation; whereas in our country, we

The Address-Mr. LaCroix have to put up with a monopoly that controls the distribution of milk and its by-products, a monopoly of meat, directed by Canada Packers and Swift's; we have to pay the prices set by chain stores, those of milled feed set by the large milling companies, to say nothing of the monopolies controlling essential public utilities such as telephone, transportation, power companies, et cetera. In other words our legislation is admirably suited to the organization of cartels.
I might, while I am on the subject, thank the government for having recently instituted a commission to recommend such changes as are necessary in our legislation to deal with trusts. I hope this will finally prevent these exploiters of human suffering from causing further harm.
I insist upon the re-establishment < f price control since it has been established beyond all doubt that, between 1941 and 1946, the cost of living index only rose five points while, on the other hand, after controls had been lifted, that is between 1946 and November 1950, it rose fifty points.
May I suggest however that the government change the practice it followed in 1941 to 1946 of appointing as price controllers officers of those big companies that constitute the monopolies I just mentioned. Those men, who were being handsomely paid by their companies could surely not serve two masters at the same time. Could we not establish a more flexible organization, one better adapted to special conditions and able to consider particular cases? I sincerely believe that an arbitration commission on prices, with no representatives from the monopolies controlling our economic activities, would be in a position to give to the public sufficient gar-antees of honesty and disinterestedness. This formula, indeed, is one that is advocated by trade unions. Labour would surely approve of it.
To show the control exerted by monopolies on our economic system, let me mention the case of the Bell Telephone, which has just been allowed by the board of transport commissioners to increase rates up to 135 per cent in the district of Quebec. I now quote the following excerpt from section 52 of the Railway Act, chapter 170 of the Revised Statutes of Canada:
The Governor in Council may at any time, in his discretion, either upon petition of any party, person or company interested, or of his own motion, and

without any petition or application, vary or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the board, whether such order or decision is made inter partes or otherwise, and whether such regulation is general or limited in its scope or application; and any order which the Governor in Council with respect thereto shall be binding upon the board and upon all parties.
In view of this section, after the board's decision, I wrote to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) on November 20, 1950 the letter which I now quote:
My dear Minister,
The people of the district of Quebec have taken due note of the board of transport commissioners' decision which, according to the statement of its deputy chief commissioner, Mr. A. Sylvestre, authorizes an increase of up to 135 per cent in telephone rates applying to the district of Quebec.
As you know, parliament has the right to appeal from this decision to the cabinet. I strongly protest against this judgment of the board of transport commissioners because, throughout the examination of the Bell Telephone Company's application, that body refused to accept any evidence showing the relation that might exist between the Bell Telephone Company of Canada and the Northern Electric Company Limited from which the former firm buys all its equipment without even asking for tenders.
If the board of transport commissioners had allowed the evidence of financial ties between the Bell Telephone and the Northern Electric Co., it would have been easy to prove that part of the Bell Telephone profits, through the channel of equipment purchases, go to the Northern Electric Co., Ltd. whose shares, were they quoted on the market, would reach an astronomical figure.
I have already proven in the House of Commons that the ten or so shareholders of the Northern Electric Co. are also the principal directors and shareholders of the Bell Telephone, and as far as I know, that proof I have given parliament has never been challenged.
That siphoning of Bell Telephone profits into the Northern Electric Co.'s till deprives the Bell shareholders of profits that belong to them and the customers of rates that would be set according to the company's real profits.
To establish the cost of the equipment provided by the Northern Electric Co., it would have been necessary for the commissioners to allow as evidence the profits made by that company. But all such evidence was entirely rejected by the board of transport commissioners.
You know as well as I do, sir, that the Bell Telephone in this country is a monopoly of this indispensable service called the "telephone apparatus" and I feel it is my duty to ask you to reconsider this decision of the board of transport commissioners which affects particularly the electors of the Quebec district who are represented in Ottawa by the Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent. The matter will no doubt crop up again during the next session and as the increase is announced for January 1, 1951, and the session will not begin before February, it seems to me that the cabinet should reconsider this matter immediately.

I am enclosing herewith an editorial published in L'Evenement, November 17 issue, and in the Soleil of November 19. The Soleil calls itself the "Liberal organ" in Quebec. Therefore you should not brush aside their views which, besides, are shared by the whole population of the Quebec district.
I am sending today a copy of this letter to the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and I rely on your kindness, since the board of transport commissioners are responsible to you, to take the necessary steps to defer the enforcement of that ruling and leave it to parliament to decide.
On December 4, 1950, the Minister of Transport replied as follows:
My attention was called, upon my return, to your letter of November 20 about the decision of the board of transport commissioners approving the revision of certain rates of the Bell Telephone Company in the district of Quebec.
As you know, the Bell Company's request for a general increase of their rates was considered by the board of transport commissioners during an investigation which began on March 8, 1950, and was completed on June 2 last. Following that investigation, the board ruled in favour of granting the company's request.
In your communication you ask me to "take the necessary steps to defer the enforcement of that ruling." In this respect, I wish to call to your attention the provisions of sections 51 and 52 of the Railway Act which grants to the board of transport commissioners, to the governor in council or to the Supreme Court of Canada, as the case may be, the exclusive right to vary or rescind a decision of the board of transport commissioners.
In other words, the board is a court of justice against whose decision an appeal may be lodged, the procedure of which is clearly established by the Railway Act. You will note that the act does not authorize the Minister of Transport to intervene in the way you suggest.
If therefore any of the parties concerned in this investigation wishes to lodge an appeal against the board's decision, it can do so by complying with the above-mentioned provisions of the Railway Act.
As for your commentaries concerning the commercial relationship between the Northern Electric Company and the Bell Telephone Company, I would refer you to the findings of the board of transport commissioners. From page 36 to page 46 of the mimeographed French version, you will find set out in detail the terms of the contract for services between these two companies. You will notice more particularly on page 46 the following statement: "Reading of the agreement, of the documentary evidence and of the minutes of proceedings proves to my satisfaction that the company pays the Northern Electric Co. prices which are not unreasonable."
In view of the fact that I have not sufficient authority to grant your request, I feel I must reject it.
I am sorry not to be able to give you a more favourable reply and I thank you for obliging me with your views in this matter.
The Address-Mr. haCroix To the above letter from the Minister of Transport, I replied as follows on December 11, 1950:
My dear Minister,
I acknowledge your letter of December 4 concerning the decision of the board of transport commissioners approving the revision of some of the Bell Telephone Company's rates in the district of Quebec.
You draw to my attention the provisions of sections 51 and 52 of the Railway Act which grants to the board of transport commissioners, the governor in council or the Supreme Court of Canada, as the case may be, the exclusive right to vary or rescind a decision of the board of transport commissioners. That is exactly what I did when I wrote to you on November 20 since I asked you in your capacity as Minister of Transport to be so good as to appeal to the governor in council of which you are part.
I understand and I have always understood that parliament has the right to appeal to the governor in council; this will probably be done shortly since you will receive petitions from every town concerned as well as from chambers of commerce begging the governor in council to intervene in this matter.
With respect to the business relationship between the Northern Electric Co. and the Bell Telephone Co., you refer me to pages 36 and 46 of the French copy of the board of transport commissioners' judgment, which deals m detail with the contract for services between these two companies. From page 46 you draw the following statement: "Reading of the agreement, of the documentary evidence and of the minutes of proceedings proves to my satisfaction that the company pays the Northern Electric Co. prices which are not unreasonable."
How then could the board of transport commissioners have reached this conclusion if they have not permitted that evidence be based on the aggregate profits made by the Northern Electric which, as you know, belongs to and is controlled by the Bell Telephone?
You know as well as I do that the Bell Telephone Company controls the Northern Electric Co. and that it is paid but a very small dividend on its shares, compared to the profits made. Investigation of the Northern Electric's operations could have easily established the exorbitant figure for depreciation, for salaries paid to officials, under various guises. In addition, you could have discovered that the Bell Telephone Company has erected a building and leased it to the Northern Electric which, in turn, sublets parts of it to the Bell Telephone.
You might also have noticed that all the equipment manufactured by the Northern Electric Company and suitable for construction purposes is entirely turned over to the Bell Telephone Company for use in its new buildings and installations.
I understand that the board of transport commissioners refused to admit any evidence concerning the operations of the Northern Electric Company in general. It seems hardly credible that the conclusion should be reached that the price asked by the Northern Electric Company for its equipment is not unreasonable, since absolutely no account is taken of profits made by this wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bell Telephone Company. After all.
106	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. LaCroix these profits should augment the latter company's revenue in all fairness to its shareholders and to the public who pay the rates established on the basis of profits made by the Bell Co. The board of transport commissioners used the expression "not unreasonable prices", in its report, because it was afraid to say "reasonable prices".
Consequently, Mr. Minister, you should not be too surprised if this question is raised once more at the next session of parliament, several members having expressed the opinion that parliament should appeal in this case to the cabinet itself. If you look into the increase in rates, as it particularly affects the Quebec district, you will agree with me that we are right.
I would be very grateful to you if you could intervene in this connection before the governor in council."
As you can see, in my letters of November 20 and December 11, 1950, I made very grave accusations and on the basis of this decision I have doubts about the competence of the members of the board. Besides, these gentlemen have had many opportunities of changing their minds in the past, for instance in the matter of freight, rates. Here is an example of the telephone rates charged in Quebec. I quote:
Per
cent
Increase
over
Former Final Form-rate rate errate
Residence service
Single line, hand telephone ..	$3.35	$4.25	21-2Double line, hand telephone ..	2.85	3.50	22-8Rural line, hand telephone .,	2.60	3.00	15-4Extension, hand telephone ....	1.15	1.25	8-7Business service Single line, hand telephone ..	5.10	9.50	86-3Rural line, hand telephone ..	3.10	4.75	53-2Extension, hand telephone	1.40	1.65	17-8Exchange line (connecting with switchboard) 	5.95	14.00	135 0Local hand telephone (connecting with switchboard) 	1.85	1.85	
The house will realize from the rates I have just mentioned the shameful exploiting which was allowed through an increase of the telephone rates in the Quebec district. I deeply regret that the Minister of Transport took no action to implement my request.
I wish to inform the house of these facts so that it may take action and also because I believe they are essential to the campaign now in progress against the exploiting of the mass of the people by those who enjoy special privileges.
One of the best ways to fight communism is to prevent the setting up of trusts and to operate the public or commercial services in the interest of all.

In addition, to promote private enterprise, legislation will be required to break up combines and ensure a better distribution of public wealth.
Before resuming my seat, I wish to mention another matter which, in my opinion, should be called to the government's attention.
In these troubled times, there is someone who can lead us into the path of understanding and avoid a third world war. I refer to the Vatican, the heart of Christendom, where, following the example set by Great Britain and several other countries, we should have an ambassador.
Many diplomats, even those who object to such relationships on purely religious grounds, admit, in private, that in no other place is it possible to obtain so much accurate and detailed information. From every corner of the globe some 2,000 reports reach the Vatican weekly. They are forwarded by some 3,000 archbishops and bishops and 300,000 priests. Such reports, especially those coming from eastern Europe by secret channels, are the best source of information to be found anywhere.
The church uses this source of information to defend itself against communism and to foster the growth of Catholicism the world over. On the basis of such data the Vatican radio is able to furnish its listeners with day and night highly interesting broadcasts in 16 different languages. Russia, Czechoslovakia, Poland and other communist countries favour the Vatican radio with as much attention as the "Voice of America" by jamming the messages sent by the church to its faithful.
A large number of those reports are not published, but diplomats accredited to the Holy See have access to them in certain circumstances.
May I therefore express the hope that, following the lead set by other countries, our leaders will send an ambassador to the Vatican.
I wish to point out too that the people of my constituency were disappointed when they noted that the speech from the throne makes no reference to the adoption of a national flag. At a time when our part in the international sphere takes on added importance from day to day, it is regrettable for our fellow countrymen abroad and for ourselves that we should still be without that symbol around which we

could rally and which would do a great deal to maintain our patriotism and the national unity so necessary to its full expression.
I dare hope that the government will very shortly review its policy in this respect. (Text):


Joseph William Noseworthy: First of all I want to join with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) in expressing my appreciation of the opportunity of having attended the United Nations as parliamentary adviser from one of the opposition groups. I want to endorse what the hon. member for Peel has said regarding the opportunity that was afforded to us as members of the opposition groups to participate with the Canadian delegation in the daily discussions of the program which was to come before the various committees of the United Nations during that session.
I am confident that the practice followed by this government in giving the opposition groups those privileges will help to win support and unity in this house for our policy against any aggressor nations. I should point out, however, that our appreciation is none the less sincere because in our subamendment, moved by the leader of this group, we take issue with government policy regarding the United Nations aggressor resolution.
One of the glories of a democracy as distinguished from totalitarianism is that we have the right and privilege to disagree with the government, or the party in power, according to our conscience and our light. I think that what the hon. member for Peel said regarding the fact that we were free as opposition members to approve or to disapprove of government policy during the discussion periods is exemplified in the fact that some of us who were members of that delegation are now taking issue with the government.
Quite rightly, Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne indicates that our chief concern in this session must be directed to the international crisis with which Canada, along with the rest of the free world, is faced, and with matters that are closely related to that crisis. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) gave us a review of that crisis which faces the free nations of the world, and he laid down certain general principles which, in his opinion, we should follow in meeting that crisis. On the whole I am confident that hon. members, and the country generally, will agree with these general principles which were laid down by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We all appreciate his awareness of that crisis and his intelligent understanding of it. I might
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy add, we have to await pronouncements from other departments of the government before we can assume that all departments of the government, and the government as a whole, are as fully aware of the crisis as is the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
This evening the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) outlined to us the government's policy of preparedness for meeting that crisis. So far as I was able to follow the minister, I assume that the government policy is as follows. First of all, we are to prepare to defend our own shores in case of an attack. We are to prepare to go to the assistance of our allies of the Atlantic treaty in case they are attacked. We are to prepare to go to the assistance of the United Nations when called upon, to stop aggression anywhere. Finally we are to prepare for the eventuality of a total war. That policy I am confident will have the fullest possible support of every member in the house, and of every political party here represented. Moreover, I am confident it will have the support of every loyal Canadian who wishes to see democracy survive in our country.
The question uppermost in the minds of Canadians today is whether or not we can contain communism without a global atomic war. Canadians do not want to find this country overrun by communists. Canadians do not want to be obliged to live in a communist-controlled world. They do however want to avoid war, if that is possible. It is the hope and prayer of millions of Canadians that communism can be halted without having recourse to such a war. It is the achievement of that objective which is the primary responsibility of governments and diplomats of the free countries of the world. To achieve that objective these governments and diplomats will need the support of the peoples of the countries they represent.
I think we dare not accept the inevitability of war. The mere acceptance of the inevitability of war may very well make war itself inevitable. We are living today in a revolutionary period-probably the greatest revolutionary period in all human history. Tides of revolution are sweeping across the world today. They can no more be stopped than can the tides of the ocean. Nor are those tides of revolution caused necessarily by communism. Without communism, without the threat of Russian imperialism, we would still be faced with these revolutions throughout the world.
The world order as we have known it for the last century is being swept away. A new world order is in process of being born. Whether that new world order is to be communism, or whether we can adjust our democratic society to meet the needs of the

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy peoples of the world, and thereby avert conquest of the world by communists, depends I think upon how speedily democracy can adjust itself, and whether it can adjust itself to meet those needs speedily enough to stop the march of communism.
Eventually we may be forced to have recourse to war-even to atomic war. I cannot for one moment believe that the democratic nations will forgo their freedom and surrender to totalitarianism any more than they were willing to surrender to totalitarian fascism and nazism, without fighting to the bitter end with every weapon at their disposal.
If there is one rallying call that should ring throughout the free world today I would say it should be, "Free peoples of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your freedom." Free peoples everywhere will rally to the cause of democracy and, if necessary, fight for it. If the newly freed peoples of Asia, and those who have not yet received their freedom, are to line up on the side of the western nations in the conflict, then democracy as we know it today must do a good deal of housecleaning. In fact, our one hope of saving democracy, either with or without war, lies in the speed with which democracy can bring about those necessary reforms within itself to meet the growing needs of the people of the world today.
Certainly communism is not the answer to those crying needs. Communism is not that good life for which the peoples of the world down through the ages have been seeking. It is not the answer to the revolutionary cries of Asia, Africa and other parts of the east. If communism is not the answer, neither is capitalism. When I refer to capitalism I mean capitalism as it exists on this continent, capitalism as the peoples of Asia have known it for almost two hundred years.
If some of the free nations today which are prepared to spend billions of dollars and millions of lives in defence of democracy would cease to confuse democracy with capitalism as it existed in the past, and be concerned more with democracy per se, in my opinion their task would be easier and their success more assured. Today there are millions of people in Asia and elsewhere who could be induced to fight for democracy. Millions of those people have very little incentive to fight for the type of capitalist democracy they have known over the past centuries.
All parties in the house are agreed that in this crisis the free nations must arm themselves. They must be prepared to fight in defence of their freedom, if that becomes the only alternative. While we all accept that premise, I believe we are agreed that it would


be preferable to avoid war if at all possible, on the theory that communism can be contained without war, and that, given time, democracy may be able to demonstrate its advantages over communism as a way of life, not only to those who live in the non-communist world but to many of those who live in parts of the world now dominated by communism.
That leads us to consider the question of negotiation with Russia. I do not believe for one moment that a general peace agreement, implying agreement on all outstanding problems, is possible with Russia. As far as I know, only one man in history has ever succeeded in making an agreement of that kind with Russia, and that was Hitler. Hitler was able to do so because he shared Russia's taste for dividing the world into spheres of influence. I cannot conceive that the United States or other countries in the United Nations will ever be willing to participate in such a horse-trading deal.
While negotiation for general peace may be impossible, that does not rule out the possibility of negotiation for peace or of agreement within limited areas. It does not rule out the possibility of maintaining an armed peace or armed truce with Russia. The idea of an armed peace is not new in history. Europe lived under an armed peace for forty years between the time of the Franco-Prus-sian war of 1870 and 1914. Granted such a truce is unstable: we know that the armed truce to which I referred eventually led to war in 1914 and any armed truce that we may achieve with Russia may eventually lead to war.
But our best chance of survival is to secure time in which the free countries of the world may not only equip themselves to withstand Russian aggression but be able to adapt themselves to the needs of the people and win support from these millions of Asiatics. Today we are engulfed in a cold war that may last for a generation. Armed peace is not war; it is not necessarily a cold war. It implies a settlement of differences in limited spheres by negotiation, even though the negotiators may parley with atom bombs in their hands. It does not imply commercial or cultural boycotts of nations; it is possible with intense trade and cultural contacts.
I think we are getting on dangerous ground if we accept and become guided by the belief that an atomic war is inevitable, that because communism is our enemy, communism must be blasted from the earth here and now by atomic bombs and the sooner we undertake it the better. That school of thought has a great many supporters in this country and in the United States, in fact far too many supporters. The adoption of that philosophy

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy
must lead eventually to a war of annihilation that will set civilization back on its heels for centuries. Those hon. members who received and read copies of the editorial that appeared in Maclean's magazine of January 15 will recall what was said about the possible results of a world war against communism at the present time. Whether we lose such a war, whether we win it or whether it draws to a stalemate, at the conclusion of that war we shall be looking straight down the gun-barrels of world war IV.
War will not wipe communism off the earth; it will no more solve our problems than did world war I or world war II solve the problems of those days. It is on that account that today millions of people are praying that our government and our diplomats may be able to guide us through this period of crisis, may be able to help us withstand the onslaught of communism, may be able to help us to contain communism or to defeat aggression without having recourse to such a world war.
Nevertheless, as I have indicated before, I think as a free people we must be prepared to meet force with force. Above all we must not permit ourselves to be pushed into such a war until we have exhausted every intelligent and honourable means of averting it. Because of the shift in world power which resulted from world war II there has been created a great power vacuum in Europe. Today we find Russia and the United States, two great world powers, vying with each other to occupy that vacuum. Capitalist America and communist Russia are fast dividing the world into two camps and each is seeking allies wherever it can.
The most potential allies that either side can find will be the Asiatic countries. Possibly not from the standpoint of military power, but in the long conflict between communism and democracy, whichever side the 800 million people in Asia choose to throw their weight toward, that side will eventually win. In the struggle for the alliance of Asiatic countries Russia has a great advantage over the western world. For two hundred years these countries have experienced life under western rule. The history of western nations in Asia does very little to win them friends there at this particular time. On the contrary, Russia was not a colonizing country during the
nineteenth century. So far as colonies in Asia and Africa are concerned, Russia has no past. She finds it much easier to appeal to the imagination and the needs of the Asiatic people than do the western countries today. As a matter of fact I think we car. agree that today the sins of capitalism in Asia are coming home to roost. Today we are paying for the sins of the past.
Faced with a revolutionary Asia, we have Russia, a great imperialist power, always on the alert, always ready to avail herself of any opportunity to foment trouble, to make the road of the democratic countries difficult and to undermine their influence. As the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said this afternoon, they are always on the alert to put the nations of the free world in the international doghouse. That, taken together with the fact that Russia has not the past that the western nations have in Asia, enables us to realize the colossal task facing the western world today if it is to win the support and allegiance of those countries.
I mentioned the fact that democracy must do some housecleaning. We have in Canada a very great degree of political democracy. It has been won for us throughout the centuries by our forebears. We appreciate the freedom of our democratic institutions. We have achieved a considerable degree of economic democracy. The sphere of economic democracy has been widening and increasing with the years. We have in this country and on this continent a considerable degree of industrial democracy. Trade unions are able to participate through collective bargaining in the planning and determining of the policies which industry shall follow. Most of the countries of Asia have very little knowledge of political, economic or industrial democracy. In addition to political, economic and industrial democracy we need to take ethnic democracy to them. The day when the white race can consider itself master of the universe, master of the world, is past. If democracy can reform itself, if we can be given time, we may well be able to avoid global warfare, and we may be able to retain and improve democracy in this country and in other countries of the world.
On motion of Mr. Noseworthy the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]


Tuesday, February G, 1951